<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_0934206</id>
	<title>Are Complex Games Doomed To Have Buggy Releases?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260956400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader points out a recent article at Gamesradar discussing the frequency of major bugs and technical issues in freshly-released video games. While such issues are often fixed with updates, questions remain about <a href="http://www.gamesradar.com/f/will-games-always-have-buggy-releases/a-2009120992117180059">the legality and ethics of rushing a game to launch</a>. Quoting:
<i>"As angry as you may be about getting a buggy title, would you want the law to get involved? Meglena Kuneva, EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner, is putting forward legislation that would legally oblige digital game distributors to give refunds for games, putting games in the same category in consumer law as household appliances. ... This call to arms has been praised by tech expert Andy Tanenbaum, author of books like <em>Operating Systems: Design and Implementation</em>. 'I think the idea that commercial software be judged by the same standards as other commercial products is not so crazy,' he says. 'Cars, TVs, and telephones are all expected to work, and they are full of software. Why not standalone software? I think such legislation would put software makers under pressure to first make sure their software works, then worry about more bells and whistles.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader points out a recent article at Gamesradar discussing the frequency of major bugs and technical issues in freshly-released video games .
While such issues are often fixed with updates , questions remain about the legality and ethics of rushing a game to launch .
Quoting : " As angry as you may be about getting a buggy title , would you want the law to get involved ?
Meglena Kuneva , EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner , is putting forward legislation that would legally oblige digital game distributors to give refunds for games , putting games in the same category in consumer law as household appliances .
... This call to arms has been praised by tech expert Andy Tanenbaum , author of books like Operating Systems : Design and Implementation .
'I think the idea that commercial software be judged by the same standards as other commercial products is not so crazy, ' he says .
'Cars , TVs , and telephones are all expected to work , and they are full of software .
Why not standalone software ?
I think such legislation would put software makers under pressure to first make sure their software works , then worry about more bells and whistles .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader points out a recent article at Gamesradar discussing the frequency of major bugs and technical issues in freshly-released video games.
While such issues are often fixed with updates, questions remain about the legality and ethics of rushing a game to launch.
Quoting:
"As angry as you may be about getting a buggy title, would you want the law to get involved?
Meglena Kuneva, EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner, is putting forward legislation that would legally oblige digital game distributors to give refunds for games, putting games in the same category in consumer law as household appliances.
... This call to arms has been praised by tech expert Andy Tanenbaum, author of books like Operating Systems: Design and Implementation.
'I think the idea that commercial software be judged by the same standards as other commercial products is not so crazy,' he says.
'Cars, TVs, and telephones are all expected to work, and they are full of software.
Why not standalone software?
I think such legislation would put software makers under pressure to first make sure their software works, then worry about more bells and whistles.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456316</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody's saying the developer should pay or be unduly punished, the issue is one of simple refund for customers who cannot use an item they have legitimately purchased in the manner intended. Remember it's also generally not the customer's fault that the game fails to run either. Yes, it could be a faulty or incompatible driver or an inconsistent hardware fault, but are you honestly arguing that in such a situation the best course of action is to punish the average user by giving him no recourse, that the fairest path is for a company to keep the money of a customer who is completely unsatisfied? How does such blatant profiteering benefit anyone, either the games industry (which surely isn't going to see another penny out of that customer when piracy is such an easy alternative) or the customer who doesn't care why the game doesn't work, just that he's massively out of pocket through no fault of his own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody 's saying the developer should pay or be unduly punished , the issue is one of simple refund for customers who can not use an item they have legitimately purchased in the manner intended .
Remember it 's also generally not the customer 's fault that the game fails to run either .
Yes , it could be a faulty or incompatible driver or an inconsistent hardware fault , but are you honestly arguing that in such a situation the best course of action is to punish the average user by giving him no recourse , that the fairest path is for a company to keep the money of a customer who is completely unsatisfied ?
How does such blatant profiteering benefit anyone , either the games industry ( which surely is n't going to see another penny out of that customer when piracy is such an easy alternative ) or the customer who does n't care why the game does n't work , just that he 's massively out of pocket through no fault of his own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody's saying the developer should pay or be unduly punished, the issue is one of simple refund for customers who cannot use an item they have legitimately purchased in the manner intended.
Remember it's also generally not the customer's fault that the game fails to run either.
Yes, it could be a faulty or incompatible driver or an inconsistent hardware fault, but are you honestly arguing that in such a situation the best course of action is to punish the average user by giving him no recourse, that the fairest path is for a company to keep the money of a customer who is completely unsatisfied?
How does such blatant profiteering benefit anyone, either the games industry (which surely isn't going to see another penny out of that customer when piracy is such an easy alternative) or the customer who doesn't care why the game doesn't work, just that he's massively out of pocket through no fault of his own?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30462878</id>
	<title>Test drive?</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1259658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Torrent before purchase.</p><p>If it don't work, don't buy it.</p><p>If it does work, PAY FOR THE GAME.</p><p>Reward those companies that get it right, ruin those that don't.</p><p>(and before anyone says "The crack is what is causing the problem", the vast majority of the problems I have encountered with torrents were also mentioned in the game developers forums, and thus experienced by non-cracked versions)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Torrent before purchase.If it do n't work , do n't buy it.If it does work , PAY FOR THE GAME.Reward those companies that get it right , ruin those that do n't .
( and before anyone says " The crack is what is causing the problem " , the vast majority of the problems I have encountered with torrents were also mentioned in the game developers forums , and thus experienced by non-cracked versions )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Torrent before purchase.If it don't work, don't buy it.If it does work, PAY FOR THE GAME.Reward those companies that get it right, ruin those that don't.
(and before anyone says "The crack is what is causing the problem", the vast majority of the problems I have encountered with torrents were also mentioned in the game developers forums, and thus experienced by non-cracked versions)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455590</id>
	<title>who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as they have a cumulative patch that you can run and update the original game distribution who cares?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they have a cumulative patch that you can run and update the original game distribution who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they have a cumulative patch that you can run and update the original game distribution who cares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459550</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they could just drop Windows support altogether and stick to consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could just drop Windows support altogether and stick to consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could just drop Windows support altogether and stick to consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456708</id>
	<title>You are on the right track</title>
	<author>cjonslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1259678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. The industry needs to start being accountable for bugs. The problem is, the term "bug" needs to be better understood. I think you are on the right track that there needs to be a common understanding of what the standard environment is. Is it just the OS? Is it the OS with OS-certified apps?</p><p>If software vendors were accountable for bugs, then they would put pressure on the OS vendor to have a more reliable platform. Reliability would start to be something that is demanded at all levels. Maybe the OS vendors would get the message and simplify their systems instead of adding layer on top of layer on top of layer....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The industry needs to start being accountable for bugs .
The problem is , the term " bug " needs to be better understood .
I think you are on the right track that there needs to be a common understanding of what the standard environment is .
Is it just the OS ?
Is it the OS with OS-certified apps ? If software vendors were accountable for bugs , then they would put pressure on the OS vendor to have a more reliable platform .
Reliability would start to be something that is demanded at all levels .
Maybe the OS vendors would get the message and simplify their systems instead of adding layer on top of layer on top of layer... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The industry needs to start being accountable for bugs.
The problem is, the term "bug" needs to be better understood.
I think you are on the right track that there needs to be a common understanding of what the standard environment is.
Is it just the OS?
Is it the OS with OS-certified apps?If software vendors were accountable for bugs, then they would put pressure on the OS vendor to have a more reliable platform.
Reliability would start to be something that is demanded at all levels.
Maybe the OS vendors would get the message and simplify their systems instead of adding layer on top of layer on top of layer....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459060</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1259688600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that's what I was going to say, to the letter.  Nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's what I was going to say , to the letter .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's what I was going to say, to the letter.
Nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760</id>
	<title>My two cents as a software developer</title>
	<author>stikves</author>
	<datestamp>1259670180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The quality of the code is a function of its cost, too.</p><p>For example, the code written for NASA hardware (i.e.: space shuttles), have more documentation than the size of the hardware itself (so, we're looking at a large pile of documents next to the shuttle). It's tested for years, it only works on tested CPUs (i.e.: 20 years old proven 8086s), and the actual "waterfall" method (which is generally a disaster for any other project) is properly applied.</p><p>That total brings the cost of each source code line to average $1000. (Same for medical appliances, etc).</p><p>The cost of a commercial off the shelf software is much (much much) less than $100.</p><p>But, even under such strict control, we had to debug the Mars rovers due to unforeseen bugs during their initial flight.</p><p>Anybody here on Slashdot can do the math, and fill in the gaps to calculate the future price of games (for a reference they are $60/unit now).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The quality of the code is a function of its cost , too.For example , the code written for NASA hardware ( i.e .
: space shuttles ) , have more documentation than the size of the hardware itself ( so , we 're looking at a large pile of documents next to the shuttle ) .
It 's tested for years , it only works on tested CPUs ( i.e .
: 20 years old proven 8086s ) , and the actual " waterfall " method ( which is generally a disaster for any other project ) is properly applied.That total brings the cost of each source code line to average $ 1000 .
( Same for medical appliances , etc ) .The cost of a commercial off the shelf software is much ( much much ) less than $ 100.But , even under such strict control , we had to debug the Mars rovers due to unforeseen bugs during their initial flight.Anybody here on Slashdot can do the math , and fill in the gaps to calculate the future price of games ( for a reference they are $ 60/unit now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quality of the code is a function of its cost, too.For example, the code written for NASA hardware (i.e.
: space shuttles), have more documentation than the size of the hardware itself (so, we're looking at a large pile of documents next to the shuttle).
It's tested for years, it only works on tested CPUs (i.e.
: 20 years old proven 8086s), and the actual "waterfall" method (which is generally a disaster for any other project) is properly applied.That total brings the cost of each source code line to average $1000.
(Same for medical appliances, etc).The cost of a commercial off the shelf software is much (much much) less than $100.But, even under such strict control, we had to debug the Mars rovers due to unforeseen bugs during their initial flight.Anybody here on Slashdot can do the math, and fill in the gaps to calculate the future price of games (for a reference they are $60/unit now).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455810</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1259670660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram?</p></div><p>Other product vendors have to pay if the customer decides they don't like the color of their purchase. So yeah, it's the cost of doing business.</p><p>It's understood that computers are complex and not every program will work in every situation, but why do you think the vendor is entitled to the money of someone who for whatever reason can't use your product? It would be a lot to ask to required the vendor to figure out what screwy component is causing problems and to make their product run on everyone's computer, but it's not a lot to expect them to only make money from people who are actually getting the bare minimum that they paid for.</p><p>Pretty much everyone knows where to get pirated versions of whatever software they want to run, so I'm pretty sure the only people hurt by not allowing refunds are honest customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram ? Other product vendors have to pay if the customer decides they do n't like the color of their purchase .
So yeah , it 's the cost of doing business.It 's understood that computers are complex and not every program will work in every situation , but why do you think the vendor is entitled to the money of someone who for whatever reason ca n't use your product ?
It would be a lot to ask to required the vendor to figure out what screwy component is causing problems and to make their product run on everyone 's computer , but it 's not a lot to expect them to only make money from people who are actually getting the bare minimum that they paid for.Pretty much everyone knows where to get pirated versions of whatever software they want to run , so I 'm pretty sure the only people hurt by not allowing refunds are honest customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram?Other product vendors have to pay if the customer decides they don't like the color of their purchase.
So yeah, it's the cost of doing business.It's understood that computers are complex and not every program will work in every situation, but why do you think the vendor is entitled to the money of someone who for whatever reason can't use your product?
It would be a lot to ask to required the vendor to figure out what screwy component is causing problems and to make their product run on everyone's computer, but it's not a lot to expect them to only make money from people who are actually getting the bare minimum that they paid for.Pretty much everyone knows where to get pirated versions of whatever software they want to run, so I'm pretty sure the only people hurt by not allowing refunds are honest customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455334</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A BSOD is most probably a driver problem. The game only triggered the problem, but is not the cause.
Also, the engine used is the UT3 engine, a \_very\_ widespread engine, so it's probably not the engine fault either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A BSOD is most probably a driver problem .
The game only triggered the problem , but is not the cause .
Also , the engine used is the UT3 engine , a \ _very \ _ widespread engine , so it 's probably not the engine fault either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A BSOD is most probably a driver problem.
The game only triggered the problem, but is not the cause.
Also, the engine used is the UT3 engine, a \_very\_ widespread engine, so it's probably not the engine fault either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30479498</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>eyore15</author>
	<datestamp>1261045740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why not run in *NIX too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>why not run in * NIX too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not run in *NIX too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274</id>
	<title>depends on the vendor</title>
	<author>prichardson</author>
	<datestamp>1259665260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the vendors that constantly have buggy initial releases are the same consistently.</p><p>EA?  I expect a buggy release or a release that doesn't run well or at all.</p><p>Blizzard?  Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days.  Blizzard has enough money and enough of a following that they don't have to shove software out before it's ready.  Their recent betas seem to have fewer bugs than other studios' releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the vendors that constantly have buggy initial releases are the same consistently.EA ?
I expect a buggy release or a release that does n't run well or at all.Blizzard ?
Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days .
Blizzard has enough money and enough of a following that they do n't have to shove software out before it 's ready .
Their recent betas seem to have fewer bugs than other studios ' releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the vendors that constantly have buggy initial releases are the same consistently.EA?
I expect a buggy release or a release that doesn't run well or at all.Blizzard?
Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days.
Blizzard has enough money and enough of a following that they don't have to shove software out before it's ready.
Their recent betas seem to have fewer bugs than other studios' releases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458452</id>
	<title>Re:depends on the vendor</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1259686200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blizzard? Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days.</p> </div><p>You should look into the extremely bad Modern Warfare 2 glitches (published by Activision) that have popped up on the consoles.  I've shelved my copy for the 360 because currently, there's a modified playlist going around which causes <a href="http://kotaku.com/5426605/modern-warfare-2-on-360-busted-ammo-in-plentiful-supply-\%5Bupdate\%5D" title="kotaku.com">infinite ammo with no reloading</a> [kotaku.com].  And it's got a viral nature, meaning once you get it, it's stuck in your playlist cache until you purge the console's cache.  So if you play someone else, you pass it on to them (and they pass it on, and so on).<br>
<br>
And that's not mentioning the glitches they've already patched (infinite care packages and javelin suicide), or the ones they haven't (matchmaking dumping you into a private match with a completely unrelated gametype).<br> <br>
And this is on Modern Warfare 2, not a small title.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard ?
Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days .
You should look into the extremely bad Modern Warfare 2 glitches ( published by Activision ) that have popped up on the consoles .
I 've shelved my copy for the 360 because currently , there 's a modified playlist going around which causes infinite ammo with no reloading [ kotaku.com ] .
And it 's got a viral nature , meaning once you get it , it 's stuck in your playlist cache until you purge the console 's cache .
So if you play someone else , you pass it on to them ( and they pass it on , and so on ) .
And that 's not mentioning the glitches they 've already patched ( infinite care packages and javelin suicide ) , or the ones they have n't ( matchmaking dumping you into a private match with a completely unrelated gametype ) .
And this is on Modern Warfare 2 , not a small title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard?
Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days.
You should look into the extremely bad Modern Warfare 2 glitches (published by Activision) that have popped up on the consoles.
I've shelved my copy for the 360 because currently, there's a modified playlist going around which causes infinite ammo with no reloading [kotaku.com].
And it's got a viral nature, meaning once you get it, it's stuck in your playlist cache until you purge the console's cache.
So if you play someone else, you pass it on to them (and they pass it on, and so on).
And that's not mentioning the glitches they've already patched (infinite care packages and javelin suicide), or the ones they haven't (matchmaking dumping you into a private match with a completely unrelated gametype).
And this is on Modern Warfare 2, not a small title.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192</id>
	<title>Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly is the downside to forcing a company to give refunds for the broken merchandise that it sells?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is the downside to forcing a company to give refunds for the broken merchandise that it sells ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is the downside to forcing a company to give refunds for the broken merchandise that it sells?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458066</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1259684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steam version, on Vista?<br> <br>Set Mass Effect as either run as admin or a UAC exception I don't remember which, run Steam as admin, and you won't have any more problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam version , on Vista ?
Set Mass Effect as either run as admin or a UAC exception I do n't remember which , run Steam as admin , and you wo n't have any more problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steam version, on Vista?
Set Mass Effect as either run as admin or a UAC exception I don't remember which, run Steam as admin, and you won't have any more problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456144</id>
	<title>yes, please</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1259673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I speak as someone who makes games as a hobby. The poor indie developer who is always cited as being pushed out of the market by legislation.</p><p>But frankly, it's the big companies that make the profits from this non-existing consumer protection. It's more than high time to change that. I want to buy software and be sure that it works. Sure, it still may not be a great game. And it would be overkill to not allow for some bugs. But there've been several cases of games shipping that couldn't even run without a patch. It's ridiculous and high time that a minimum of consumer protection is established.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I speak as someone who makes games as a hobby .
The poor indie developer who is always cited as being pushed out of the market by legislation.But frankly , it 's the big companies that make the profits from this non-existing consumer protection .
It 's more than high time to change that .
I want to buy software and be sure that it works .
Sure , it still may not be a great game .
And it would be overkill to not allow for some bugs .
But there 've been several cases of games shipping that could n't even run without a patch .
It 's ridiculous and high time that a minimum of consumer protection is established .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I speak as someone who makes games as a hobby.
The poor indie developer who is always cited as being pushed out of the market by legislation.But frankly, it's the big companies that make the profits from this non-existing consumer protection.
It's more than high time to change that.
I want to buy software and be sure that it works.
Sure, it still may not be a great game.
And it would be overkill to not allow for some bugs.
But there've been several cases of games shipping that couldn't even run without a patch.
It's ridiculous and high time that a minimum of consumer protection is established.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</id>
	<title>Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run. My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get, it's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines, I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things, it's a tried and true PC.<br><br>This is the first game that just does not run, at all, it starts, crashes or gives a blue screen and that's that. Sometimes it even attempts to break my video card and causes after-effects until a couple more restarts, basically it acts as bad as a virus. I paid $50 for this crap.<br><br>There are many, many companies that do not have these problems. They create good engines, good software that works. They test it thoroughly and deliver a working product. And while some issues do persist, I've never seen a game that simply blue screens while trying to start.<br><br>There has to be a clear line between selling software that might include a few scripting bugs, maybe a crash every 5 hours if you're unlucky, or problems that come from user error and badly setup PCs and games like Mass Effect which either work or don't, flip a coin and hope for the best.<br><br>Damn right I would want the law involved, this is a defective title but I can't do anything about it except trying it on some future computer and hoping that ME finds it satisfactory for whatever reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run .
My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get , it 's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines , I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things , it 's a tried and true PC.This is the first game that just does not run , at all , it starts , crashes or gives a blue screen and that 's that .
Sometimes it even attempts to break my video card and causes after-effects until a couple more restarts , basically it acts as bad as a virus .
I paid $ 50 for this crap.There are many , many companies that do not have these problems .
They create good engines , good software that works .
They test it thoroughly and deliver a working product .
And while some issues do persist , I 've never seen a game that simply blue screens while trying to start.There has to be a clear line between selling software that might include a few scripting bugs , maybe a crash every 5 hours if you 're unlucky , or problems that come from user error and badly setup PCs and games like Mass Effect which either work or do n't , flip a coin and hope for the best.Damn right I would want the law involved , this is a defective title but I ca n't do anything about it except trying it on some future computer and hoping that ME finds it satisfactory for whatever reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run.
My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get, it's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines, I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things, it's a tried and true PC.This is the first game that just does not run, at all, it starts, crashes or gives a blue screen and that's that.
Sometimes it even attempts to break my video card and causes after-effects until a couple more restarts, basically it acts as bad as a virus.
I paid $50 for this crap.There are many, many companies that do not have these problems.
They create good engines, good software that works.
They test it thoroughly and deliver a working product.
And while some issues do persist, I've never seen a game that simply blue screens while trying to start.There has to be a clear line between selling software that might include a few scripting bugs, maybe a crash every 5 hours if you're unlucky, or problems that come from user error and badly setup PCs and games like Mass Effect which either work or don't, flip a coin and hope for the best.Damn right I would want the law involved, this is a defective title but I can't do anything about it except trying it on some future computer and hoping that ME finds it satisfactory for whatever reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456202</id>
	<title>Re:What about Betas?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259673900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If it doesn't include Beta releases, then everything everyone makes will be labeled a Beta until kingdom come. </i></p><p>There's a reason why most Linux tools, even ones with a decade in use, have a version number 0.something...</p><p>But here's a solution to unlimited betas a commercial product: Just simply "outlaw" selling beta products. They will have to stamp something 'release version' if they want to earn a buck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it does n't include Beta releases , then everything everyone makes will be labeled a Beta until kingdom come .
There 's a reason why most Linux tools , even ones with a decade in use , have a version number 0.something...But here 's a solution to unlimited betas a commercial product : Just simply " outlaw " selling beta products .
They will have to stamp something 'release version ' if they want to earn a buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it doesn't include Beta releases, then everything everyone makes will be labeled a Beta until kingdom come.
There's a reason why most Linux tools, even ones with a decade in use, have a version number 0.something...But here's a solution to unlimited betas a commercial product: Just simply "outlaw" selling beta products.
They will have to stamp something 'release version' if they want to earn a buck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455464</id>
	<title>Re:Yes and No</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1259667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what's "stupid"?  Making ridiculous strawman arguments.  Quote anything in the article that suggests "laws that would <b>force</b> software producers to run proper QA testing".  Go on.  I'll wait while you find someone to read it to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what 's " stupid " ?
Making ridiculous strawman arguments .
Quote anything in the article that suggests " laws that would force software producers to run proper QA testing " .
Go on .
I 'll wait while you find someone to read it to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what's "stupid"?
Making ridiculous strawman arguments.
Quote anything in the article that suggests "laws that would force software producers to run proper QA testing".
Go on.
I'll wait while you find someone to read it to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30466550</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1259671380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run. My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get, it's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines, I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things, it's a tried and true PC."</p><p>I've had the same sort sof issues but this is when it's time to reinstall a fresh copy of windows.  I always have a spare hard drive with a fresh copy of XP on it to test games with, when you install software over long periods of time on ANY microsoft OS, you can expect garbage entries to pile up that will prevent certain software from working.  I know I still have a drive that won't run certain games because other software is conflicting with it that I have yet to pull the rest of the files off of.</p><p>The nature of windows drivers, DLL's and the registry in windows IMHO is what causes MOST of peoples problems with software.</p><p>Back in ye old DOS days, you could clear everything out of your config.sys or autoexec.bat and run "clean" and shit would just work.</p><p>Windows perversely causes thee things by not trying to simplify the OS, IMHO games should run in their own virtual environment like if they are on a fresh install of the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run .
My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get , it 's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines , I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things , it 's a tried and true PC .
" I 've had the same sort sof issues but this is when it 's time to reinstall a fresh copy of windows .
I always have a spare hard drive with a fresh copy of XP on it to test games with , when you install software over long periods of time on ANY microsoft OS , you can expect garbage entries to pile up that will prevent certain software from working .
I know I still have a drive that wo n't run certain games because other software is conflicting with it that I have yet to pull the rest of the files off of.The nature of windows drivers , DLL 's and the registry in windows IMHO is what causes MOST of peoples problems with software.Back in ye old DOS days , you could clear everything out of your config.sys or autoexec.bat and run " clean " and shit would just work.Windows perversely causes thee things by not trying to simplify the OS , IMHO games should run in their own virtual environment like if they are on a fresh install of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run.
My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get, it's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines, I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things, it's a tried and true PC.
"I've had the same sort sof issues but this is when it's time to reinstall a fresh copy of windows.
I always have a spare hard drive with a fresh copy of XP on it to test games with, when you install software over long periods of time on ANY microsoft OS, you can expect garbage entries to pile up that will prevent certain software from working.
I know I still have a drive that won't run certain games because other software is conflicting with it that I have yet to pull the rest of the files off of.The nature of windows drivers, DLL's and the registry in windows IMHO is what causes MOST of peoples problems with software.Back in ye old DOS days, you could clear everything out of your config.sys or autoexec.bat and run "clean" and shit would just work.Windows perversely causes thee things by not trying to simplify the OS, IMHO games should run in their own virtual environment like if they are on a fresh install of the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455418</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>craagz</author>
	<datestamp>1259666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are many, many companies that do not have these problems. They create good engines, good software that works. They test it thoroughly and deliver a working product.</p></div></blockquote><p>Guess Duke Nukem Forever is delayed because of this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many , many companies that do not have these problems .
They create good engines , good software that works .
They test it thoroughly and deliver a working product.Guess Duke Nukem Forever is delayed because of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many, many companies that do not have these problems.
They create good engines, good software that works.
They test it thoroughly and deliver a working product.Guess Duke Nukem Forever is delayed because of this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456784</id>
	<title>Release it now, patch it later attitude..</title>
	<author>GrBear</author>
	<datestamp>1259678520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has always been a thorn in my side.</p><p>Why is it the expectation that a game released on a console be perfect, yet a game released for a computer generally be released early and patched later.</p><p>Yes it's true that console games (of the past) made it impossible to 'patch' and had to be held to a higher standard, and I'm fine with that.  But this attitude of computer game developers to release shoddy code and then release patch after patch down the road is poor development.  And this seems to be the norm for anything on the computer, and people blindly accept substandard crap yet are intolerant of it on other pieces of technology.</p><p>If people started to hold software developers to a higher standard when it comes to computer software instead of bending over and taking it, perhaps we wouldn't have so much shoddy software in the first place.</p><p>Just a thought!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has always been a thorn in my side.Why is it the expectation that a game released on a console be perfect , yet a game released for a computer generally be released early and patched later.Yes it 's true that console games ( of the past ) made it impossible to 'patch ' and had to be held to a higher standard , and I 'm fine with that .
But this attitude of computer game developers to release shoddy code and then release patch after patch down the road is poor development .
And this seems to be the norm for anything on the computer , and people blindly accept substandard crap yet are intolerant of it on other pieces of technology.If people started to hold software developers to a higher standard when it comes to computer software instead of bending over and taking it , perhaps we would n't have so much shoddy software in the first place.Just a thought !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has always been a thorn in my side.Why is it the expectation that a game released on a console be perfect, yet a game released for a computer generally be released early and patched later.Yes it's true that console games (of the past) made it impossible to 'patch' and had to be held to a higher standard, and I'm fine with that.
But this attitude of computer game developers to release shoddy code and then release patch after patch down the road is poor development.
And this seems to be the norm for anything on the computer, and people blindly accept substandard crap yet are intolerant of it on other pieces of technology.If people started to hold software developers to a higher standard when it comes to computer software instead of bending over and taking it, perhaps we wouldn't have so much shoddy software in the first place.Just a thought!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456902</id>
	<title>Bad idea</title>
	<author>darCness</author>
	<datestamp>1259679180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This subject has come up before, and it's just as bad an idea now as it was then.</p><p>When you release a physical product, you can issue disclaimers with it like "don't use near flame", "don't use in extreme cold", "don't use naked inside live volcano." Software can wind up installed on systems that are the equivalent of all of these. Can you test on every OS, OS minor version, OS with patches x/y/z, combination of drivers, this chipset, that graphics card? What about on systems that are misconfigured? With corrupt Registries/Netinfo DBs/config files? How about ones infected with Malware? What if the admin/user installs or configures your software incorrectly?</p><p>Every system is a potentially highly hazardous environment that you cannot control nor test for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This subject has come up before , and it 's just as bad an idea now as it was then.When you release a physical product , you can issue disclaimers with it like " do n't use near flame " , " do n't use in extreme cold " , " do n't use naked inside live volcano .
" Software can wind up installed on systems that are the equivalent of all of these .
Can you test on every OS , OS minor version , OS with patches x/y/z , combination of drivers , this chipset , that graphics card ?
What about on systems that are misconfigured ?
With corrupt Registries/Netinfo DBs/config files ?
How about ones infected with Malware ?
What if the admin/user installs or configures your software incorrectly ? Every system is a potentially highly hazardous environment that you can not control nor test for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This subject has come up before, and it's just as bad an idea now as it was then.When you release a physical product, you can issue disclaimers with it like "don't use near flame", "don't use in extreme cold", "don't use naked inside live volcano.
" Software can wind up installed on systems that are the equivalent of all of these.
Can you test on every OS, OS minor version, OS with patches x/y/z, combination of drivers, this chipset, that graphics card?
What about on systems that are misconfigured?
With corrupt Registries/Netinfo DBs/config files?
How about ones infected with Malware?
What if the admin/user installs or configures your software incorrectly?Every system is a potentially highly hazardous environment that you cannot control nor test for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30472482</id>
	<title>Windows OS next?</title>
	<author>kilroy0097</author>
	<datestamp>1261060200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this gets passed for video games then wouldn't it also set legal precedent for inferior OS as well? Microsoft and it's long history of crappy first releases for the Windows OS which could be a viable next target.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this gets passed for video games then would n't it also set legal precedent for inferior OS as well ?
Microsoft and it 's long history of crappy first releases for the Windows OS which could be a viable next target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this gets passed for video games then wouldn't it also set legal precedent for inferior OS as well?
Microsoft and it's long history of crappy first releases for the Windows OS which could be a viable next target.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463646</id>
	<title>Re:Along the same lines...</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1259661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When I buy a car I expect that parts will continue to be made for it for years to come, shouldn't software be supported for 15-20 years as a NORMAL business practice?</p></div></blockquote><p>Software?  But software ARE the parts made for your computer.  One of the types anyway.</p><p>Think of software as tires.  You could keep patching them, but eventually you have to buy new ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I buy a car I expect that parts will continue to be made for it for years to come , should n't software be supported for 15-20 years as a NORMAL business practice ? Software ?
But software ARE the parts made for your computer .
One of the types anyway.Think of software as tires .
You could keep patching them , but eventually you have to buy new ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I buy a car I expect that parts will continue to be made for it for years to come, shouldn't software be supported for 15-20 years as a NORMAL business practice?Software?
But software ARE the parts made for your computer.
One of the types anyway.Think of software as tires.
You could keep patching them, but eventually you have to buy new ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455306</id>
	<title>Isn't there a difference?</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1259665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't there a bit of a difference there between the examples (TVs, DVD players, etc) and PC software? Everything else is a self-contained unit with no dependencies on anything else or (in the case of DVD players) accepts things that are within tight tollerances (and if your disk isn't, then it'll skip, but that's the disk's fault).</p><p>Software, on the other hand, has no control over the environment that it is put in (unless it is an OS X app, which is somewhat consistent), with huge permutations of other software, hardware components, and dodgy background processes, plus user fiddling. It isn't quite as easy to get things flawless in that situation (although some companies can improve on what they do now).</p><p>Also, how will this relate to OSS? Will I never release a final version of my app because I can't afford the liability and so it'll always be in beta because there could be bugs left?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there a bit of a difference there between the examples ( TVs , DVD players , etc ) and PC software ?
Everything else is a self-contained unit with no dependencies on anything else or ( in the case of DVD players ) accepts things that are within tight tollerances ( and if your disk is n't , then it 'll skip , but that 's the disk 's fault ) .Software , on the other hand , has no control over the environment that it is put in ( unless it is an OS X app , which is somewhat consistent ) , with huge permutations of other software , hardware components , and dodgy background processes , plus user fiddling .
It is n't quite as easy to get things flawless in that situation ( although some companies can improve on what they do now ) .Also , how will this relate to OSS ?
Will I never release a final version of my app because I ca n't afford the liability and so it 'll always be in beta because there could be bugs left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there a bit of a difference there between the examples (TVs, DVD players, etc) and PC software?
Everything else is a self-contained unit with no dependencies on anything else or (in the case of DVD players) accepts things that are within tight tollerances (and if your disk isn't, then it'll skip, but that's the disk's fault).Software, on the other hand, has no control over the environment that it is put in (unless it is an OS X app, which is somewhat consistent), with huge permutations of other software, hardware components, and dodgy background processes, plus user fiddling.
It isn't quite as easy to get things flawless in that situation (although some companies can improve on what they do now).Also, how will this relate to OSS?
Will I never release a final version of my app because I can't afford the liability and so it'll always be in beta because there could be bugs left?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457708</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259683500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a load of shit. Even given exact hardware on consoles they still pump out shit.
<br> <br>
Yet there are companies like Nintendo have managed to pump out quality built software that doesn't need patching upon its release.
<br> <br>
Blizzard manages to make games of a superior quality on the PC without specifying very exact hardware. The difference is they put money into testing and quality time into developing rather than acting like it's some kind of race to pump out games faster than anyone else.
<br> <br>
It's no surprise that it's companies like Nintendo and Blizzard that don't really have financial problems despite maybe releasing fewer games because each game is of a higher quality than what most other's release.
<br> <br>
If you're dealing with an OS or non-entertainment software, the shoddy workmanship can lead to a person losing personal items like family photos or worse yet financial information which will have a huge effect on their life. So there is no reason people should not expect software to be of a high quality.
<br> <br>
For ages publishers have fucked people over with ridiculous terms &amp; conditions that say they're not responsible for anything despite the fact they made the damn software. No other industry gets away with that. What's worse is often the T&amp;C are inside the box, you have to open it and if you disagree and try to take it back to the shop you're labelled a pirate and told to fuck off and if you're lucky you deal with the hassle of mailing the disc back to the publisher and maybe seeing your month in a couple months. It's a hassle and they know it will stop people from doing it. Instead they'll just live with the shoddy workmanship. So quite rightly it's about time they're held to a higher standard and release something decent in the first place.
<br> <br>
Who knows maybe they'll actually start hiring quality developers again rather than paying peanuts for some inexperienced off-shore guy. BTW, not all off-shoring people are inexperienced but from my experience companies don't care as much about a developer's experience when they're paying less than the company's home country's minimum wage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a load of shit .
Even given exact hardware on consoles they still pump out shit .
Yet there are companies like Nintendo have managed to pump out quality built software that does n't need patching upon its release .
Blizzard manages to make games of a superior quality on the PC without specifying very exact hardware .
The difference is they put money into testing and quality time into developing rather than acting like it 's some kind of race to pump out games faster than anyone else .
It 's no surprise that it 's companies like Nintendo and Blizzard that do n't really have financial problems despite maybe releasing fewer games because each game is of a higher quality than what most other 's release .
If you 're dealing with an OS or non-entertainment software , the shoddy workmanship can lead to a person losing personal items like family photos or worse yet financial information which will have a huge effect on their life .
So there is no reason people should not expect software to be of a high quality .
For ages publishers have fucked people over with ridiculous terms &amp; conditions that say they 're not responsible for anything despite the fact they made the damn software .
No other industry gets away with that .
What 's worse is often the T&amp;C are inside the box , you have to open it and if you disagree and try to take it back to the shop you 're labelled a pirate and told to fuck off and if you 're lucky you deal with the hassle of mailing the disc back to the publisher and maybe seeing your month in a couple months .
It 's a hassle and they know it will stop people from doing it .
Instead they 'll just live with the shoddy workmanship .
So quite rightly it 's about time they 're held to a higher standard and release something decent in the first place .
Who knows maybe they 'll actually start hiring quality developers again rather than paying peanuts for some inexperienced off-shore guy .
BTW , not all off-shoring people are inexperienced but from my experience companies do n't care as much about a developer 's experience when they 're paying less than the company 's home country 's minimum wage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a load of shit.
Even given exact hardware on consoles they still pump out shit.
Yet there are companies like Nintendo have managed to pump out quality built software that doesn't need patching upon its release.
Blizzard manages to make games of a superior quality on the PC without specifying very exact hardware.
The difference is they put money into testing and quality time into developing rather than acting like it's some kind of race to pump out games faster than anyone else.
It's no surprise that it's companies like Nintendo and Blizzard that don't really have financial problems despite maybe releasing fewer games because each game is of a higher quality than what most other's release.
If you're dealing with an OS or non-entertainment software, the shoddy workmanship can lead to a person losing personal items like family photos or worse yet financial information which will have a huge effect on their life.
So there is no reason people should not expect software to be of a high quality.
For ages publishers have fucked people over with ridiculous terms &amp; conditions that say they're not responsible for anything despite the fact they made the damn software.
No other industry gets away with that.
What's worse is often the T&amp;C are inside the box, you have to open it and if you disagree and try to take it back to the shop you're labelled a pirate and told to fuck off and if you're lucky you deal with the hassle of mailing the disc back to the publisher and maybe seeing your month in a couple months.
It's a hassle and they know it will stop people from doing it.
Instead they'll just live with the shoddy workmanship.
So quite rightly it's about time they're held to a higher standard and release something decent in the first place.
Who knows maybe they'll actually start hiring quality developers again rather than paying peanuts for some inexperienced off-shore guy.
BTW, not all off-shoring people are inexperienced but from my experience companies don't care as much about a developer's experience when they're paying less than the company's home country's minimum wage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461326</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't there a difference?</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1259696520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory, an application <em>should</em> be self-contained. That's what the OS is for. That interference from other applications and a changing OS interface make this hard in the current climate just proves what a piece of shit Windows is as an OS.</p><p>Hell, the way I hear people going on in the Games section, we might as well return to programming the bare hardware. In terms of stability and compatibility, things might even <em>improve</em>!</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , an application should be self-contained .
That 's what the OS is for .
That interference from other applications and a changing OS interface make this hard in the current climate just proves what a piece of shit Windows is as an OS.Hell , the way I hear people going on in the Games section , we might as well return to programming the bare hardware .
In terms of stability and compatibility , things might even improve !
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, an application should be self-contained.
That's what the OS is for.
That interference from other applications and a changing OS interface make this hard in the current climate just proves what a piece of shit Windows is as an OS.Hell, the way I hear people going on in the Games section, we might as well return to programming the bare hardware.
In terms of stability and compatibility, things might even improve!
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458694</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1259687040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I only play console games.  I've never once had a problem running <em>Mass Effect</em> on my XBOX 360.  Heck, it's one of my all-time favorite games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I only play console games .
I 've never once had a problem running Mass Effect on my XBOX 360 .
Heck , it 's one of my all-time favorite games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I only play console games.
I've never once had a problem running Mass Effect on my XBOX 360.
Heck, it's one of my all-time favorite games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456508</id>
	<title>All software has bugs</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1259676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All software has bugs. It's just a matter of how serious they are. The Showstoppers. The question shouldn't be Will there be bug-free software, but whether or not developers can reduce the severity of bugs to a tolerable level. And most game companies think they've done that--until they're caught with their pants down.</p><p>* The internet has allowed game companies to use (and even expect) the public to do the debug/beta testing work that they used to pay for and what used to push out release times.</p><p>* A release loses millions by not releasing earlier than the competition, and any bozo who can get on a beta-testing team, can also work for your competition, thus any innovation (if there is any left in the game world) is gone about the second you do it.</p><p>* Many developers also don't come upon debug naturally, they see it as someone else's problem--or figure it should take all but a day to do, when those in verification/validation know that the verification cycle (done well) easily takes longer than the time it takes to code.</p><p>* This isn't helped by management which tends to put more belief in a developer's schedule than in the team of debuggers who are stating they need more time. It's always the first schedule to be chopped, because it works on the CEO's computer, so why isn't it making him any money!?</p><p>* Finally there's a new model in town, which not only bypasses debug, but also the content creation stage of gaming, which is the online gaming, where a simple game skeleton is thrown out there on a social networking site, like facebook, and then developers just continually improve their offerings by fixing things, and adding content as users progress through the game.</p><p>All of these factors have added to the malaise in quality software. So yay!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All software has bugs .
It 's just a matter of how serious they are .
The Showstoppers .
The question should n't be Will there be bug-free software , but whether or not developers can reduce the severity of bugs to a tolerable level .
And most game companies think they 've done that--until they 're caught with their pants down .
* The internet has allowed game companies to use ( and even expect ) the public to do the debug/beta testing work that they used to pay for and what used to push out release times .
* A release loses millions by not releasing earlier than the competition , and any bozo who can get on a beta-testing team , can also work for your competition , thus any innovation ( if there is any left in the game world ) is gone about the second you do it .
* Many developers also do n't come upon debug naturally , they see it as someone else 's problem--or figure it should take all but a day to do , when those in verification/validation know that the verification cycle ( done well ) easily takes longer than the time it takes to code .
* This is n't helped by management which tends to put more belief in a developer 's schedule than in the team of debuggers who are stating they need more time .
It 's always the first schedule to be chopped , because it works on the CEO 's computer , so why is n't it making him any money ! ?
* Finally there 's a new model in town , which not only bypasses debug , but also the content creation stage of gaming , which is the online gaming , where a simple game skeleton is thrown out there on a social networking site , like facebook , and then developers just continually improve their offerings by fixing things , and adding content as users progress through the game.All of these factors have added to the malaise in quality software .
So yay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All software has bugs.
It's just a matter of how serious they are.
The Showstoppers.
The question shouldn't be Will there be bug-free software, but whether or not developers can reduce the severity of bugs to a tolerable level.
And most game companies think they've done that--until they're caught with their pants down.
* The internet has allowed game companies to use (and even expect) the public to do the debug/beta testing work that they used to pay for and what used to push out release times.
* A release loses millions by not releasing earlier than the competition, and any bozo who can get on a beta-testing team, can also work for your competition, thus any innovation (if there is any left in the game world) is gone about the second you do it.
* Many developers also don't come upon debug naturally, they see it as someone else's problem--or figure it should take all but a day to do, when those in verification/validation know that the verification cycle (done well) easily takes longer than the time it takes to code.
* This isn't helped by management which tends to put more belief in a developer's schedule than in the team of debuggers who are stating they need more time.
It's always the first schedule to be chopped, because it works on the CEO's computer, so why isn't it making him any money!?
* Finally there's a new model in town, which not only bypasses debug, but also the content creation stage of gaming, which is the online gaming, where a simple game skeleton is thrown out there on a social networking site, like facebook, and then developers just continually improve their offerings by fixing things, and adding content as users progress through the game.All of these factors have added to the malaise in quality software.
So yay!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463136</id>
	<title>what about hardware?</title>
	<author>Keep Six</author>
	<datestamp>1259659320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I buy one more mobo that needs a BIOS flash right out of the box, I'm going to kill a puppy. No, two puppies.  Cute ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy one more mobo that needs a BIOS flash right out of the box , I 'm going to kill a puppy .
No , two puppies .
Cute ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy one more mobo that needs a BIOS flash right out of the box, I'm going to kill a puppy.
No, two puppies.
Cute ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455436</id>
	<title>Mr Tanenbaum, the hardware must be fixed first!!!</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1259667180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Tanenbaum, as I have told you in an email, modern CPUs lack any hardware support for modules within a process! that's a major flaw that does not allow for proper isolation of modules within a process.</p><p>You said that "it will be a hard sell to hardware manufacturers" when I proposed you to promote this idea. But it's so easy to make! the hardware extensions required for modules within a process are minimal - mostly extensions to page tables; existing software needs not be modified!</p><p>Of course, this is not a panacea, but it is certainly a step in the right direction...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Tanenbaum , as I have told you in an email , modern CPUs lack any hardware support for modules within a process !
that 's a major flaw that does not allow for proper isolation of modules within a process.You said that " it will be a hard sell to hardware manufacturers " when I proposed you to promote this idea .
But it 's so easy to make !
the hardware extensions required for modules within a process are minimal - mostly extensions to page tables ; existing software needs not be modified ! Of course , this is not a panacea , but it is certainly a step in the right direction.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Tanenbaum, as I have told you in an email, modern CPUs lack any hardware support for modules within a process!
that's a major flaw that does not allow for proper isolation of modules within a process.You said that "it will be a hard sell to hardware manufacturers" when I proposed you to promote this idea.
But it's so easy to make!
the hardware extensions required for modules within a process are minimal - mostly extensions to page tables; existing software needs not be modified!Of course, this is not a panacea, but it is certainly a step in the right direction...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457824</id>
	<title>This is hurting companies bottom line</title>
	<author>Satanboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have held off from being an early adopter of games to the increase in bugs.  I rarely purchase a game at release but wait a couple of weeks to a few months to verify the game is going to work out of the box as intended, or if it won't at least a patch will be out when I get it.</p><p>It is unfortunate as I don't believe I'm the only one.  How many of you hold off on purchases for this reason?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have held off from being an early adopter of games to the increase in bugs .
I rarely purchase a game at release but wait a couple of weeks to a few months to verify the game is going to work out of the box as intended , or if it wo n't at least a patch will be out when I get it.It is unfortunate as I do n't believe I 'm the only one .
How many of you hold off on purchases for this reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have held off from being an early adopter of games to the increase in bugs.
I rarely purchase a game at release but wait a couple of weeks to a few months to verify the game is going to work out of the box as intended, or if it won't at least a patch will be out when I get it.It is unfortunate as I don't believe I'm the only one.
How many of you hold off on purchases for this reason?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272</id>
	<title>What about Betas?</title>
	<author>miggyb</author>
	<datestamp>1259665260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this includes Beta releases, then that effectively means that the software company would have to much more testing in-house and ramp up the prices of the finished product to compensate.
<br> <br>
If it doesn't include Beta releases, then everything everyone makes will be labeled a Beta until kingdom come.
<br> <br>
Seems like a pretty difficult law to write. Perhaps limit how long a Beta test can last?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this includes Beta releases , then that effectively means that the software company would have to much more testing in-house and ramp up the prices of the finished product to compensate .
If it does n't include Beta releases , then everything everyone makes will be labeled a Beta until kingdom come .
Seems like a pretty difficult law to write .
Perhaps limit how long a Beta test can last ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this includes Beta releases, then that effectively means that the software company would have to much more testing in-house and ramp up the prices of the finished product to compensate.
If it doesn't include Beta releases, then everything everyone makes will be labeled a Beta until kingdom come.
Seems like a pretty difficult law to write.
Perhaps limit how long a Beta test can last?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455548</id>
	<title>Re:Along the same lines...</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1259668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does your car service level agreement promise 20 years of parts manufacture?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...I thought it might not. Even if a deal like that is available, it wouldn't be if cars improved at the speed computing does.</p><p>Car parts will only be made as long as there's demand, same goes for software support. It just happens not many people want support for 20 year old software. That is NORMAL business practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does your car service level agreement promise 20 years of parts manufacture ?
...I thought it might not .
Even if a deal like that is available , it would n't be if cars improved at the speed computing does.Car parts will only be made as long as there 's demand , same goes for software support .
It just happens not many people want support for 20 year old software .
That is NORMAL business practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does your car service level agreement promise 20 years of parts manufacture?
...I thought it might not.
Even if a deal like that is available, it wouldn't be if cars improved at the speed computing does.Car parts will only be made as long as there's demand, same goes for software support.
It just happens not many people want support for 20 year old software.
That is NORMAL business practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456858</id>
	<title>Re:My two cents as a software developer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.</p><p>Cars cost $20,000+.  TVs cost $1000+.  Computer games cost $50.  I would argue that most games are on the complexity of a car rather than a TV but even at a TV-level of complexity that's a factor of 20 in price difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you.Cars cost $ 20,000 + .
TVs cost $ 1000 + .
Computer games cost $ 50 .
I would argue that most games are on the complexity of a car rather than a TV but even at a TV-level of complexity that 's a factor of 20 in price difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.Cars cost $20,000+.
TVs cost $1000+.
Computer games cost $50.
I would argue that most games are on the complexity of a car rather than a TV but even at a TV-level of complexity that's a factor of 20 in price difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459950</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, consumer protections for software</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1259691600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am going to try my best to not be insulting here, because I know plenty of IT people who are smart, but you really aren't rising above your stereotypes.<br> <br>In something as complex as a AAA video game, there are going to be bugs.  There are just too many lines of code that are doing too many complex things for their not to be bugs.  Also, there are too many different configuration of hardware/OS/drivers to adequately test for every combination on the planet.<br> <br>You expect your DVD player to play DVDs because that is its primary function.  It is the same hardware so they can test the hell out of it.  Also, playing DVDs is its primary function.<br> <br>I would expect someone in IT should be able to see that is different than a PC which is a lot more complex for so many reasons.  Add on top of that millions of lines more code than you would have in DVD player and that you are doing complex calculations based on user input and you can become a lot more forgiving of issues.<br> <br>The only people that want this are people who are completely ignorant of how their PC and video games work.  It would raise the price of games and would minimally reduce the number of bugs.  Besides, if something stupid like this was put in place, they would just always label the game beta or place a statement in the ToS that waives their liability.  Just dumb all around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to try my best to not be insulting here , because I know plenty of IT people who are smart , but you really are n't rising above your stereotypes .
In something as complex as a AAA video game , there are going to be bugs .
There are just too many lines of code that are doing too many complex things for their not to be bugs .
Also , there are too many different configuration of hardware/OS/drivers to adequately test for every combination on the planet .
You expect your DVD player to play DVDs because that is its primary function .
It is the same hardware so they can test the hell out of it .
Also , playing DVDs is its primary function .
I would expect someone in IT should be able to see that is different than a PC which is a lot more complex for so many reasons .
Add on top of that millions of lines more code than you would have in DVD player and that you are doing complex calculations based on user input and you can become a lot more forgiving of issues .
The only people that want this are people who are completely ignorant of how their PC and video games work .
It would raise the price of games and would minimally reduce the number of bugs .
Besides , if something stupid like this was put in place , they would just always label the game beta or place a statement in the ToS that waives their liability .
Just dumb all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to try my best to not be insulting here, because I know plenty of IT people who are smart, but you really aren't rising above your stereotypes.
In something as complex as a AAA video game, there are going to be bugs.
There are just too many lines of code that are doing too many complex things for their not to be bugs.
Also, there are too many different configuration of hardware/OS/drivers to adequately test for every combination on the planet.
You expect your DVD player to play DVDs because that is its primary function.
It is the same hardware so they can test the hell out of it.
Also, playing DVDs is its primary function.
I would expect someone in IT should be able to see that is different than a PC which is a lot more complex for so many reasons.
Add on top of that millions of lines more code than you would have in DVD player and that you are doing complex calculations based on user input and you can become a lot more forgiving of issues.
The only people that want this are people who are completely ignorant of how their PC and video games work.
It would raise the price of games and would minimally reduce the number of bugs.
Besides, if something stupid like this was put in place, they would just always label the game beta or place a statement in the ToS that waives their liability.
Just dumb all around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463556</id>
	<title>We *do* have proper QA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big game teams (those with 100-200 or more people on them) employ dozens, sometimes *hundreds* of people for at least a couple of months, to test their games full-time.  I know because I work on big AAA console games.  Our testers logged more than 20,000 bugs against the last game I worked on; tens of thousands of other bug reports were automatically generated from crashes and such.  And we track and and fix as many of the bugs as we possibly can.  On our best day, our team fixed more than 1200 bugs *in one single day*.</p><p>What you have to understand is that these games are immensely big and complicated.  The last game I worked on had more than 3 million lines of C/C++ source code, with more than 1 million of that in the engine.  It had tens of thousands of animations, tens of thousands of textures, *over a hundred thousand recorded voice clips*, thousands of meshes, *millions* of discrete game objects spread across dozens of maps, etc.  Making a perfect, bug-free game on this scale is a near-impossible task.  There's a direct tradeoff between bugginess and time it takes to ship it.  To improve the quality level enough to please everybody, would delay most games by 1 year or longer.  Wouldn't you rather play a cutting edge game *now*, while its still cutting edge, rather than get it 1-2 years later?</p><p>By the way, most console games have a level of stability that's around 1 crash per 100 hours.  Bad ones might have 1 crash per 10 hours.  There are a lot of different ways that something can go wrong in a complex, dynamic engine.  Believe it or not, many "freezes" on consoles occur simply because the game was low on free memory, and due to memory fragmentation (because it had been running for a while), it just ran out of memory.  Consoles have a fixed amount of RAM, so there's not much we can do if we just run out of it.  We do try very hard not to leak and not to fragment, and to leave enough breathing room to handle fragmentation over time.  But its all very complex and "just do proper QA" will not really solve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big game teams ( those with 100-200 or more people on them ) employ dozens , sometimes * hundreds * of people for at least a couple of months , to test their games full-time .
I know because I work on big AAA console games .
Our testers logged more than 20,000 bugs against the last game I worked on ; tens of thousands of other bug reports were automatically generated from crashes and such .
And we track and and fix as many of the bugs as we possibly can .
On our best day , our team fixed more than 1200 bugs * in one single day * .What you have to understand is that these games are immensely big and complicated .
The last game I worked on had more than 3 million lines of C/C + + source code , with more than 1 million of that in the engine .
It had tens of thousands of animations , tens of thousands of textures , * over a hundred thousand recorded voice clips * , thousands of meshes , * millions * of discrete game objects spread across dozens of maps , etc .
Making a perfect , bug-free game on this scale is a near-impossible task .
There 's a direct tradeoff between bugginess and time it takes to ship it .
To improve the quality level enough to please everybody , would delay most games by 1 year or longer .
Would n't you rather play a cutting edge game * now * , while its still cutting edge , rather than get it 1-2 years later ? By the way , most console games have a level of stability that 's around 1 crash per 100 hours .
Bad ones might have 1 crash per 10 hours .
There are a lot of different ways that something can go wrong in a complex , dynamic engine .
Believe it or not , many " freezes " on consoles occur simply because the game was low on free memory , and due to memory fragmentation ( because it had been running for a while ) , it just ran out of memory .
Consoles have a fixed amount of RAM , so there 's not much we can do if we just run out of it .
We do try very hard not to leak and not to fragment , and to leave enough breathing room to handle fragmentation over time .
But its all very complex and " just do proper QA " will not really solve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big game teams (those with 100-200 or more people on them) employ dozens, sometimes *hundreds* of people for at least a couple of months, to test their games full-time.
I know because I work on big AAA console games.
Our testers logged more than 20,000 bugs against the last game I worked on; tens of thousands of other bug reports were automatically generated from crashes and such.
And we track and and fix as many of the bugs as we possibly can.
On our best day, our team fixed more than 1200 bugs *in one single day*.What you have to understand is that these games are immensely big and complicated.
The last game I worked on had more than 3 million lines of C/C++ source code, with more than 1 million of that in the engine.
It had tens of thousands of animations, tens of thousands of textures, *over a hundred thousand recorded voice clips*, thousands of meshes, *millions* of discrete game objects spread across dozens of maps, etc.
Making a perfect, bug-free game on this scale is a near-impossible task.
There's a direct tradeoff between bugginess and time it takes to ship it.
To improve the quality level enough to please everybody, would delay most games by 1 year or longer.
Wouldn't you rather play a cutting edge game *now*, while its still cutting edge, rather than get it 1-2 years later?By the way, most console games have a level of stability that's around 1 crash per 100 hours.
Bad ones might have 1 crash per 10 hours.
There are a lot of different ways that something can go wrong in a complex, dynamic engine.
Believe it or not, many "freezes" on consoles occur simply because the game was low on free memory, and due to memory fragmentation (because it had been running for a while), it just ran out of memory.
Consoles have a fixed amount of RAM, so there's not much we can do if we just run out of it.
We do try very hard not to leak and not to fragment, and to leave enough breathing room to handle fragmentation over time.
But its all very complex and "just do proper QA" will not really solve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455384</id>
	<title>AST</title>
	<author>yanyan</author>
	<datestamp>1259666520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Andy Tanenbaum is now a mere "tech expert"? That's a big step down from "CS god."</p><p>For the uninformed, ast wrote a kinda good book on operating systems called "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation." I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book (and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy!). And then there's a bunch of other stuff you may or may not know about, such as the Amoeba distributed OS, a free anonymous p2p network called Turtle, and probably a few other knick-knacks along the way.</p><p>Seriously, give the Man due credit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Andy Tanenbaum is now a mere " tech expert " ?
That 's a big step down from " CS god .
" For the uninformed , ast wrote a kinda good book on operating systems called " Operating Systems : Design and Implementation .
" I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book ( and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy ! ) .
And then there 's a bunch of other stuff you may or may not know about , such as the Amoeba distributed OS , a free anonymous p2p network called Turtle , and probably a few other knick-knacks along the way.Seriously , give the Man due credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Andy Tanenbaum is now a mere "tech expert"?
That's a big step down from "CS god.
"For the uninformed, ast wrote a kinda good book on operating systems called "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation.
" I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book (and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy!).
And then there's a bunch of other stuff you may or may not know about, such as the Amoeba distributed OS, a free anonymous p2p network called Turtle, and probably a few other knick-knacks along the way.Seriously, give the Man due credit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455462</id>
	<title>Implications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think such legislation would put software makers under pressure to first make sure their software works, then worry about more bells and whistles.</p></div></blockquote><p>That legislation would also pressure software makers to create stringent DRM schemes which make sure no one buys an app, installs it and returns it to the shop to get a refund, thus lowering the quality of software. Maybe there's more consequences than the eye can see in this proposal... I would give different ideas, but most of them have nasty implications:</p><ul><li>Require software companies to send patches via (physical) mail: potential Big Brother, too much market intervention.</li><li>Create a government board to investigate software bugs: creates artificial jobs which duplicate existing work, inefficient, potential abuse by people like Michael Atkinson...</li></ul><p>The only way is, in my POV, for the buyers to get information about the software release beforehand. The government can't help here without creating more hassles than solutions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think such legislation would put software makers under pressure to first make sure their software works , then worry about more bells and whistles.That legislation would also pressure software makers to create stringent DRM schemes which make sure no one buys an app , installs it and returns it to the shop to get a refund , thus lowering the quality of software .
Maybe there 's more consequences than the eye can see in this proposal... I would give different ideas , but most of them have nasty implications : Require software companies to send patches via ( physical ) mail : potential Big Brother , too much market intervention.Create a government board to investigate software bugs : creates artificial jobs which duplicate existing work , inefficient , potential abuse by people like Michael Atkinson...The only way is , in my POV , for the buyers to get information about the software release beforehand .
The government ca n't help here without creating more hassles than solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think such legislation would put software makers under pressure to first make sure their software works, then worry about more bells and whistles.That legislation would also pressure software makers to create stringent DRM schemes which make sure no one buys an app, installs it and returns it to the shop to get a refund, thus lowering the quality of software.
Maybe there's more consequences than the eye can see in this proposal... I would give different ideas, but most of them have nasty implications:Require software companies to send patches via (physical) mail: potential Big Brother, too much market intervention.Create a government board to investigate software bugs: creates artificial jobs which duplicate existing work, inefficient, potential abuse by people like Michael Atkinson...The only way is, in my POV, for the buyers to get information about the software release beforehand.
The government can't help here without creating more hassles than solutions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456792</id>
	<title>Re:My two cents as a software developer</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1259678580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, the code written for NASA hardware (i.e.: space shuttles), have more documentation than the size of the hardware itself (so, we're looking at a large pile of documents next to the shuttle). It's tested for years, it only works on tested CPUs (i.e.: 20 years old proven 8086s), and the actual "waterfall" method (which is generally a disaster for any other project) is properly applied.</p></div><p>That's the version NASA puts out, anyway. I know someone who's worked on the shuttle's backup software and tells rather a different story. Code written in 1970s, documentation written in 1980s; when the coders updated the code they would tell the documenters about it, but it was pretty informal; documentation converted from typewriter output to one electronic format without careful checking (introducing errors in guidance formulae which weren't noticed for 15 years, dropping footnotes, etc); then outsourced conversion from that to Word, introducing more errors and messing up lots of diagrams; documentation with long chains of Boolean expressions containing no bracketing;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , the code written for NASA hardware ( i.e .
: space shuttles ) , have more documentation than the size of the hardware itself ( so , we 're looking at a large pile of documents next to the shuttle ) .
It 's tested for years , it only works on tested CPUs ( i.e .
: 20 years old proven 8086s ) , and the actual " waterfall " method ( which is generally a disaster for any other project ) is properly applied.That 's the version NASA puts out , anyway .
I know someone who 's worked on the shuttle 's backup software and tells rather a different story .
Code written in 1970s , documentation written in 1980s ; when the coders updated the code they would tell the documenters about it , but it was pretty informal ; documentation converted from typewriter output to one electronic format without careful checking ( introducing errors in guidance formulae which were n't noticed for 15 years , dropping footnotes , etc ) ; then outsourced conversion from that to Word , introducing more errors and messing up lots of diagrams ; documentation with long chains of Boolean expressions containing no bracketing ; .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, the code written for NASA hardware (i.e.
: space shuttles), have more documentation than the size of the hardware itself (so, we're looking at a large pile of documents next to the shuttle).
It's tested for years, it only works on tested CPUs (i.e.
: 20 years old proven 8086s), and the actual "waterfall" method (which is generally a disaster for any other project) is properly applied.That's the version NASA puts out, anyway.
I know someone who's worked on the shuttle's backup software and tells rather a different story.
Code written in 1970s, documentation written in 1980s; when the coders updated the code they would tell the documenters about it, but it was pretty informal; documentation converted from typewriter output to one electronic format without careful checking (introducing errors in guidance formulae which weren't noticed for 15 years, dropping footnotes, etc); then outsourced conversion from that to Word, introducing more errors and messing up lots of diagrams; documentation with long chains of Boolean expressions containing no bracketing; ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456610</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1259677500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off, you'd be able to answer your own question.</p><p>On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.  Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app, for example, Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching.  I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.</p></div><p>That's fine.  I wouldn't expect a refund in such a case.</p><p>But what about all the assorted bugs that wind up being the developer's own fault?</p><p>I remember some Myst sequel that absolutely refused to run on my computer because my optical drive was labeled M: instead of D: or E:  The developer acknowledged the issue and made a patch available shortly.  But it sure seems to me like they shipped a broken product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off , you 'd be able to answer your own question.On a PC , the vendor ca n't control the environment in which their software is run .
Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app , for example , Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching .
I say " for example " since that 's the example given in the article that you did n't bother to read.That 's fine .
I would n't expect a refund in such a case.But what about all the assorted bugs that wind up being the developer 's own fault ? I remember some Myst sequel that absolutely refused to run on my computer because my optical drive was labeled M : instead of D : or E : The developer acknowledged the issue and made a patch available shortly .
But it sure seems to me like they shipped a broken product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off, you'd be able to answer your own question.On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.
Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app, for example, Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching.
I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.That's fine.
I wouldn't expect a refund in such a case.But what about all the assorted bugs that wind up being the developer's own fault?I remember some Myst sequel that absolutely refused to run on my computer because my optical drive was labeled M: instead of D: or E:  The developer acknowledged the issue and made a patch available shortly.
But it sure seems to me like they shipped a broken product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456082</id>
	<title>Buggy or Beta?</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259672820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember reading an article by a company which developed a racing game for XBox360 (i don't remember the company, nor the title of the game). They said that Microsoft pressured them to release the game 6 weeks early and finish it later via patches<br> <br>

The best programmers can make mistakes, shure, but when you start deliberately selling betas and turning them into final versions later, just so you can cash up earlier, at the expense of the customers satisfaction, that goes too far, imho.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading an article by a company which developed a racing game for XBox360 ( i do n't remember the company , nor the title of the game ) .
They said that Microsoft pressured them to release the game 6 weeks early and finish it later via patches The best programmers can make mistakes , shure , but when you start deliberately selling betas and turning them into final versions later , just so you can cash up earlier , at the expense of the customers satisfaction , that goes too far , imho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading an article by a company which developed a racing game for XBox360 (i don't remember the company, nor the title of the game).
They said that Microsoft pressured them to release the game 6 weeks early and finish it later via patches 

The best programmers can make mistakes, shure, but when you start deliberately selling betas and turning them into final versions later, just so you can cash up earlier, at the expense of the customers satisfaction, that goes too far, imho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455374</id>
	<title>Buggy releases aren't the problem</title>
	<author>HNS-I</author>
	<datestamp>1259666460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't read TA because my instant reaction is that it doesn't matter if a first release is buggy. The problem is that software houses release a game and put all their effort into the new game, which is logical, but often neglect the last game too much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read TA because my instant reaction is that it does n't matter if a first release is buggy .
The problem is that software houses release a game and put all their effort into the new game , which is logical , but often neglect the last game too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read TA because my instant reaction is that it doesn't matter if a first release is buggy.
The problem is that software houses release a game and put all their effort into the new game, which is logical, but often neglect the last game too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457098</id>
	<title>How do you monitor this?</title>
	<author>mschirmer</author>
	<datestamp>1259680320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we all should very well know here, power supplies, quality of m/b &amp; memory, other pc components all have a factor to play in the stability of a machine and can cause a piece of software to act as though it is buggy, when in fact it's actually the machine hardware itself that has an issue. How do you monitor this sort of behaviour as a bug? It's not feasible for developer to look in to every reported problem associated with their program, especially if it's run on hardware that wasn't setup correctly. I think that having a standard of release for software is a great step forward, but how do you manage the difference between a bug, and something caused by the envrionment/hardware? How do you put something like this in to place without going totally overboard? It's not feasible for developers to write code to handle every possible exception in their software according to external influences (caused by power flucuations, bad drivers, misbehaving memory bits for whatever reason, etc). I see where this is going, and I like the idea, I just can't wrap my head around the implications of attempting to implement something like this in an industry where hardware alone can make all the difference to the users perception of buggy software vs stable software. Software on a TV, or a Car Nav system, Stereo, Microwave, they are all hardware controlled by the manufacturer, so its much easier to test. You test it on one machine, and it works, so therefore it should always work. Does the same "it worked in our super-duper lab environment test" theory apply to this proposed legislation as well?</p><p>My 2 cents. I'm sure it's not even worth that much but hey</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we all should very well know here , power supplies , quality of m/b &amp; memory , other pc components all have a factor to play in the stability of a machine and can cause a piece of software to act as though it is buggy , when in fact it 's actually the machine hardware itself that has an issue .
How do you monitor this sort of behaviour as a bug ?
It 's not feasible for developer to look in to every reported problem associated with their program , especially if it 's run on hardware that was n't setup correctly .
I think that having a standard of release for software is a great step forward , but how do you manage the difference between a bug , and something caused by the envrionment/hardware ?
How do you put something like this in to place without going totally overboard ?
It 's not feasible for developers to write code to handle every possible exception in their software according to external influences ( caused by power flucuations , bad drivers , misbehaving memory bits for whatever reason , etc ) .
I see where this is going , and I like the idea , I just ca n't wrap my head around the implications of attempting to implement something like this in an industry where hardware alone can make all the difference to the users perception of buggy software vs stable software .
Software on a TV , or a Car Nav system , Stereo , Microwave , they are all hardware controlled by the manufacturer , so its much easier to test .
You test it on one machine , and it works , so therefore it should always work .
Does the same " it worked in our super-duper lab environment test " theory apply to this proposed legislation as well ? My 2 cents .
I 'm sure it 's not even worth that much but hey</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we all should very well know here, power supplies, quality of m/b &amp; memory, other pc components all have a factor to play in the stability of a machine and can cause a piece of software to act as though it is buggy, when in fact it's actually the machine hardware itself that has an issue.
How do you monitor this sort of behaviour as a bug?
It's not feasible for developer to look in to every reported problem associated with their program, especially if it's run on hardware that wasn't setup correctly.
I think that having a standard of release for software is a great step forward, but how do you manage the difference between a bug, and something caused by the envrionment/hardware?
How do you put something like this in to place without going totally overboard?
It's not feasible for developers to write code to handle every possible exception in their software according to external influences (caused by power flucuations, bad drivers, misbehaving memory bits for whatever reason, etc).
I see where this is going, and I like the idea, I just can't wrap my head around the implications of attempting to implement something like this in an industry where hardware alone can make all the difference to the users perception of buggy software vs stable software.
Software on a TV, or a Car Nav system, Stereo, Microwave, they are all hardware controlled by the manufacturer, so its much easier to test.
You test it on one machine, and it works, so therefore it should always work.
Does the same "it worked in our super-duper lab environment test" theory apply to this proposed legislation as well?My 2 cents.
I'm sure it's not even worth that much but hey</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455550</id>
	<title>M$ will go broke</title>
	<author>lcarnevale</author>
	<datestamp>1259668200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this happens, then there are two options (that I can see at least)
1. Microsoft will go broke refunding a LOT of users
2. The next release of windows 8 will be delayed to 2025+</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this happens , then there are two options ( that I can see at least ) 1 .
Microsoft will go broke refunding a LOT of users 2 .
The next release of windows 8 will be delayed to 2025 +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this happens, then there are two options (that I can see at least)
1.
Microsoft will go broke refunding a LOT of users
2.
The next release of windows 8 will be delayed to 2025+</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30460552</id>
	<title>Anyone Ever Play Horizon's?</title>
	<author>McDozer</author>
	<datestamp>1259693760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The game that ONLY ran if you had ONE specific video card ( I believe the Nvidia card that came with the original XBox).  It's like the game was coded for the X-Box then converted over to the PC, if you didn't have that Nvidia card, ( I believe it was in the 4 series, 4880 or something, it was years ago ) you were NOT going to play the game.  Pity to, the game had tons of potential.....I honestly could not believe they released that crap in the state it was in.  Needless to say the release killed the game outright.  Some other company has snapped it up now and renamed it Istaria but it will never recover from the horrid launch.

Unfortunately I bought the game and had an ATI card at the time, I was rather disappointed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:{(</htmltext>
<tokenext>The game that ONLY ran if you had ONE specific video card ( I believe the Nvidia card that came with the original XBox ) .
It 's like the game was coded for the X-Box then converted over to the PC , if you did n't have that Nvidia card , ( I believe it was in the 4 series , 4880 or something , it was years ago ) you were NOT going to play the game .
Pity to , the game had tons of potential.....I honestly could not believe they released that crap in the state it was in .
Needless to say the release killed the game outright .
Some other company has snapped it up now and renamed it Istaria but it will never recover from the horrid launch .
Unfortunately I bought the game and had an ATI card at the time , I was rather disappointed : { (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The game that ONLY ran if you had ONE specific video card ( I believe the Nvidia card that came with the original XBox).
It's like the game was coded for the X-Box then converted over to the PC, if you didn't have that Nvidia card, ( I believe it was in the 4 series, 4880 or something, it was years ago ) you were NOT going to play the game.
Pity to, the game had tons of potential.....I honestly could not believe they released that crap in the state it was in.
Needless to say the release killed the game outright.
Some other company has snapped it up now and renamed it Istaria but it will never recover from the horrid launch.
Unfortunately I bought the game and had an ATI card at the time, I was rather disappointed :{(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457692</id>
	<title>Re:Yes and No</title>
	<author>tkelechogi</author>
	<datestamp>1259683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent point: it \_is\_ a sliding scale.  And where on the scale software is when it's released is a business decision.  And you, as a consumer, can choose to not do business w/ a company who you feel has bad judgment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point : it \ _is \ _ a sliding scale .
And where on the scale software is when it 's released is a business decision .
And you , as a consumer , can choose to not do business w/ a company who you feel has bad judgment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point: it \_is\_ a sliding scale.
And where on the scale software is when it's released is a business decision.
And you, as a consumer, can choose to not do business w/ a company who you feel has bad judgment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30462654</id>
	<title>Doomed? no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259700960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Are Complex Games Doomed To Have Buggy Releases?"</p><p>No. The buggy releases are a top-level management/marketing decision, not a carved in stone doom. Complex [anything] is more *prone* to having bugs than simpler [anything], not doomed to it. There are software development techniques and testing techniques that would, if used, prevent the big showstopper bugs that have been in new releases lately. Sure, maybe a "this texture tears a bit in this one-in-a-million chance corner case" bug slips through, but not "the game crashes to desktop at the main menu screen". It would not even alter the release schedule much; a large part of the release pressure they're blaming the bugs on comes from the same poor planning that led to the bugs to begin with. [or to rephrase that: you're supposed to allocate enough time for testing from the beginning]</p><p>But many game companies aren't doing it right, because it takes less planning (and therefore less expense in hiring) to do it wrong, and they've been allowed to get away with doing it wrong. They'll continue to do it wrong until it has enough of a financial impact that doing it right makes them more money than doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Are Complex Games Doomed To Have Buggy Releases ? " No .
The buggy releases are a top-level management/marketing decision , not a carved in stone doom .
Complex [ anything ] is more * prone * to having bugs than simpler [ anything ] , not doomed to it .
There are software development techniques and testing techniques that would , if used , prevent the big showstopper bugs that have been in new releases lately .
Sure , maybe a " this texture tears a bit in this one-in-a-million chance corner case " bug slips through , but not " the game crashes to desktop at the main menu screen " .
It would not even alter the release schedule much ; a large part of the release pressure they 're blaming the bugs on comes from the same poor planning that led to the bugs to begin with .
[ or to rephrase that : you 're supposed to allocate enough time for testing from the beginning ] But many game companies are n't doing it right , because it takes less planning ( and therefore less expense in hiring ) to do it wrong , and they 've been allowed to get away with doing it wrong .
They 'll continue to do it wrong until it has enough of a financial impact that doing it right makes them more money than doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Are Complex Games Doomed To Have Buggy Releases?"No.
The buggy releases are a top-level management/marketing decision, not a carved in stone doom.
Complex [anything] is more *prone* to having bugs than simpler [anything], not doomed to it.
There are software development techniques and testing techniques that would, if used, prevent the big showstopper bugs that have been in new releases lately.
Sure, maybe a "this texture tears a bit in this one-in-a-million chance corner case" bug slips through, but not "the game crashes to desktop at the main menu screen".
It would not even alter the release schedule much; a large part of the release pressure they're blaming the bugs on comes from the same poor planning that led to the bugs to begin with.
[or to rephrase that: you're supposed to allocate enough time for testing from the beginning]But many game companies aren't doing it right, because it takes less planning (and therefore less expense in hiring) to do it wrong, and they've been allowed to get away with doing it wrong.
They'll continue to do it wrong until it has enough of a financial impact that doing it right makes them more money than doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770</id>
	<title>Piracy.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1259670240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What exactly is the downside to forcing a company to give refunds for the broken merchandise that it sells?</i></p><p>Well, the industry would say piracy.   I might buy Call of Duty, then, said it was "broken", and returned it.  Granted, this should be the norm, but the industry would see things differently.  This is why the shareware model is nice.  You can see if the game actually works before you pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is the downside to forcing a company to give refunds for the broken merchandise that it sells ? Well , the industry would say piracy .
I might buy Call of Duty , then , said it was " broken " , and returned it .
Granted , this should be the norm , but the industry would see things differently .
This is why the shareware model is nice .
You can see if the game actually works before you pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is the downside to forcing a company to give refunds for the broken merchandise that it sells?Well, the industry would say piracy.
I might buy Call of Duty, then, said it was "broken", and returned it.
Granted, this should be the norm, but the industry would see things differently.
This is why the shareware model is nice.
You can see if the game actually works before you pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294</id>
	<title>Along the same lines...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I buy a car I expect that parts will continue to be made for it for years to come, shouldn't software be supported for 15-20 years as a NORMAL business practice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I buy a car I expect that parts will continue to be made for it for years to come , should n't software be supported for 15-20 years as a NORMAL business practice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I buy a car I expect that parts will continue to be made for it for years to come, shouldn't software be supported for 15-20 years as a NORMAL business practice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455470</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit.<br>
<br>
Other games on the same rendering, physics, and sound engines run fine on his system. The problem isnt with the drivers, although sometimes driver makers FIX THE BUGS IN 3RD PARTY GAMES.<br>
<br>
The problem is almost certainly the copy protection mechanism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Other games on the same rendering , physics , and sound engines run fine on his system .
The problem isnt with the drivers , although sometimes driver makers FIX THE BUGS IN 3RD PARTY GAMES .
The problem is almost certainly the copy protection mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Other games on the same rendering, physics, and sound engines run fine on his system.
The problem isnt with the drivers, although sometimes driver makers FIX THE BUGS IN 3RD PARTY GAMES.
The problem is almost certainly the copy protection mechanism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457228</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1259681100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to cause software companies to write very specific hardware requirements like:<br>2.6 ghz quad core AMD processor [model number, driver revision]<br>AMD 790x chipset [model number, driver revision]<br>ATi 4870 GPU [model number, driver revision]<br>Western Digital 1tb drive [model number]<br>Microsoft windows 7 [patch, revision, release year]</p><p>No one will read the hardware requirements, just like they don't now and the software companies will essentially have the same leeway they do now unless you have the exact motherboard, cpu, gpu, memory, hard drive they spec for the game.<br>Assuming people do read the hardware requirements, most people won't even know what they have in their computer. If there are bugs, there will be a very small subset of people that get refunds.</p><p>There's no way a guy that buys Assassin's Creed II to run on his netbook is going to get a refund.</p><p>Essentially [with few notable exceptions] most people that can't run a game bought something too ambitious for their hardware.</p><p>Then there are people with broken hardware, like the first couple of runs of nvidia multicore chipsets.</p><p>It's going to boil down to "Prove our software is broken, it works on the machines we coded it on, the configuration of which we made abundantly clear in the hardware requirements, and if you don't have one [flips bird]"</p><p>I personally have never bought a game that didn't work.</p><p>There are plenty of products that get replaced under warranty. A software patch is essentially the equivalent a warranty replacement.</p><p>Companies will get 4-6 weeks to put a patch out, and probably have 3 chances to do it before it's declared a lemon.</p><p>Nothing to see here move along...</p><p>Devices with software that works perfectly, as Andy mentions, have software written for a very specific piece of hardware, so it's hella easier to get it right than software that runs on millions of permutations of hardware combinations like PC's.</p><p>As a programmer he should know better...</p><p>If anything this will make things WORSE for consumers. Once hardware manufacturers release a new driver for any piece of hardware, or Microsoft has a patch Tuesday, the software company is off the hook and won't be obliged to release any more patches.</p><p>How many people do you know of that build a new computer for every game they buy? Well they'll have to for the software companies to be liable for their game bugs. They also won't be able to patch anything if they want to fill their end of the warranty for the game.</p><p>This will never do any good for anyone. It will make things worse. The security implications aren't pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to cause software companies to write very specific hardware requirements like : 2.6 ghz quad core AMD processor [ model number , driver revision ] AMD 790x chipset [ model number , driver revision ] ATi 4870 GPU [ model number , driver revision ] Western Digital 1tb drive [ model number ] Microsoft windows 7 [ patch , revision , release year ] No one will read the hardware requirements , just like they do n't now and the software companies will essentially have the same leeway they do now unless you have the exact motherboard , cpu , gpu , memory , hard drive they spec for the game.Assuming people do read the hardware requirements , most people wo n't even know what they have in their computer .
If there are bugs , there will be a very small subset of people that get refunds.There 's no way a guy that buys Assassin 's Creed II to run on his netbook is going to get a refund.Essentially [ with few notable exceptions ] most people that ca n't run a game bought something too ambitious for their hardware.Then there are people with broken hardware , like the first couple of runs of nvidia multicore chipsets.It 's going to boil down to " Prove our software is broken , it works on the machines we coded it on , the configuration of which we made abundantly clear in the hardware requirements , and if you do n't have one [ flips bird ] " I personally have never bought a game that did n't work.There are plenty of products that get replaced under warranty .
A software patch is essentially the equivalent a warranty replacement.Companies will get 4-6 weeks to put a patch out , and probably have 3 chances to do it before it 's declared a lemon.Nothing to see here move along...Devices with software that works perfectly , as Andy mentions , have software written for a very specific piece of hardware , so it 's hella easier to get it right than software that runs on millions of permutations of hardware combinations like PC 's.As a programmer he should know better...If anything this will make things WORSE for consumers .
Once hardware manufacturers release a new driver for any piece of hardware , or Microsoft has a patch Tuesday , the software company is off the hook and wo n't be obliged to release any more patches.How many people do you know of that build a new computer for every game they buy ?
Well they 'll have to for the software companies to be liable for their game bugs .
They also wo n't be able to patch anything if they want to fill their end of the warranty for the game.This will never do any good for anyone .
It will make things worse .
The security implications are n't pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to cause software companies to write very specific hardware requirements like:2.6 ghz quad core AMD processor [model number, driver revision]AMD 790x chipset [model number, driver revision]ATi 4870 GPU [model number, driver revision]Western Digital 1tb drive [model number]Microsoft windows 7 [patch, revision, release year]No one will read the hardware requirements, just like they don't now and the software companies will essentially have the same leeway they do now unless you have the exact motherboard, cpu, gpu, memory, hard drive they spec for the game.Assuming people do read the hardware requirements, most people won't even know what they have in their computer.
If there are bugs, there will be a very small subset of people that get refunds.There's no way a guy that buys Assassin's Creed II to run on his netbook is going to get a refund.Essentially [with few notable exceptions] most people that can't run a game bought something too ambitious for their hardware.Then there are people with broken hardware, like the first couple of runs of nvidia multicore chipsets.It's going to boil down to "Prove our software is broken, it works on the machines we coded it on, the configuration of which we made abundantly clear in the hardware requirements, and if you don't have one [flips bird]"I personally have never bought a game that didn't work.There are plenty of products that get replaced under warranty.
A software patch is essentially the equivalent a warranty replacement.Companies will get 4-6 weeks to put a patch out, and probably have 3 chances to do it before it's declared a lemon.Nothing to see here move along...Devices with software that works perfectly, as Andy mentions, have software written for a very specific piece of hardware, so it's hella easier to get it right than software that runs on millions of permutations of hardware combinations like PC's.As a programmer he should know better...If anything this will make things WORSE for consumers.
Once hardware manufacturers release a new driver for any piece of hardware, or Microsoft has a patch Tuesday, the software company is off the hook and won't be obliged to release any more patches.How many people do you know of that build a new computer for every game they buy?
Well they'll have to for the software companies to be liable for their game bugs.
They also won't be able to patch anything if they want to fill their end of the warranty for the game.This will never do any good for anyone.
It will make things worse.
The security implications aren't pretty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30468276</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1259682120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.</p></div><p>PC Guy: Oh my God! How do you expect me to manage security in the Gaza strip! Seriously! Windows works just fine. The fact that World War III hasn't started here should tell you I'm doing just fine.</p><p>Mac Guy: (standing astride the Swiss Alps, sipping cocoa in his posh chalet) I don't see a problem, PC. You're a failure.</p><p>Woman: I'm going with Mac.</p><p>Mac Guy (looking down upon her): Okay, but you're going to have to move out of the Middle East first.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a PC , the vendor ca n't control the environment in which their software is run.PC Guy : Oh my God !
How do you expect me to manage security in the Gaza strip !
Seriously ! Windows works just fine .
The fact that World War III has n't started here should tell you I 'm doing just fine.Mac Guy : ( standing astride the Swiss Alps , sipping cocoa in his posh chalet ) I do n't see a problem , PC .
You 're a failure.Woman : I 'm going with Mac.Mac Guy ( looking down upon her ) : Okay , but you 're going to have to move out of the Middle East first.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.PC Guy: Oh my God!
How do you expect me to manage security in the Gaza strip!
Seriously! Windows works just fine.
The fact that World War III hasn't started here should tell you I'm doing just fine.Mac Guy: (standing astride the Swiss Alps, sipping cocoa in his posh chalet) I don't see a problem, PC.
You're a failure.Woman: I'm going with Mac.Mac Guy (looking down upon her): Okay, but you're going to have to move out of the Middle East first.--Toro
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456578</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, consumer protections for software</title>
	<author>infalliable</author>
	<datestamp>1259677320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A DVD player should work all the time.  As a manufacturer, you have total control over the system (both software and hardware).</p><p>The issue with "pure" software is you really don't know what it is going to be running on.  For a PC, there are millions of potential hardware and software configurations.  Most of these combos behave the same (to the program), but not always.  It is literally impossible to test all configurations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A DVD player should work all the time .
As a manufacturer , you have total control over the system ( both software and hardware ) .The issue with " pure " software is you really do n't know what it is going to be running on .
For a PC , there are millions of potential hardware and software configurations .
Most of these combos behave the same ( to the program ) , but not always .
It is literally impossible to test all configurations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A DVD player should work all the time.
As a manufacturer, you have total control over the system (both software and hardware).The issue with "pure" software is you really don't know what it is going to be running on.
For a PC, there are millions of potential hardware and software configurations.
Most of these combos behave the same (to the program), but not always.
It is literally impossible to test all configurations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458008</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, using your example, what's wrong with needing to give a refund?<br>As the consumer, I bought something. I expect it to work for me. If it doesn't work for me, reasonable choices are a) I'm out the cost, sucks to be me, I'm out $50. b) The store gives me a refund, and everybody is right back where they were before the store sold me a product I couldn't use.<br>Which seems more reasonable?  Right now it's a, and I argue that it's not at all a reasonable situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , using your example , what 's wrong with needing to give a refund ? As the consumer , I bought something .
I expect it to work for me .
If it does n't work for me , reasonable choices are a ) I 'm out the cost , sucks to be me , I 'm out $ 50 .
b ) The store gives me a refund , and everybody is right back where they were before the store sold me a product I could n't use.Which seems more reasonable ?
Right now it 's a , and I argue that it 's not at all a reasonable situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, using your example, what's wrong with needing to give a refund?As the consumer, I bought something.
I expect it to work for me.
If it doesn't work for me, reasonable choices are a) I'm out the cost, sucks to be me, I'm out $50.
b) The store gives me a refund, and everybody is right back where they were before the store sold me a product I couldn't use.Which seems more reasonable?
Right now it's a, and I argue that it's not at all a reasonable situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455382</id>
	<title>Re:What about Betas?</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1259666520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there companies running betas where the players pay them? When access to the beta is free, players demanding a refund will not be a risk for the company running the beta.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there companies running betas where the players pay them ?
When access to the beta is free , players demanding a refund will not be a risk for the company running the beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there companies running betas where the players pay them?
When access to the beta is free, players demanding a refund will not be a risk for the company running the beta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30460584</id>
	<title>Tag "left4dead2"?</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1259693880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That game was so buggy, do a little searching and the complaints are everywhere...it's clear that they never fresh installed a final build and playtested even one level of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That game was so buggy , do a little searching and the complaints are everywhere...it 's clear that they never fresh installed a final build and playtested even one level of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That game was so buggy, do a little searching and the complaints are everywhere...it's clear that they never fresh installed a final build and playtested even one level of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455676</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Usekh</author>
	<datestamp>1259669460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it worked absolutely flawlessly for me. Not a crash, hangup or anything on two separate systems and the same on a friends computer. But of course it is the -game- not your system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it worked absolutely flawlessly for me .
Not a crash , hangup or anything on two separate systems and the same on a friends computer .
But of course it is the -game- not your system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it worked absolutely flawlessly for me.
Not a crash, hangup or anything on two separate systems and the same on a friends computer.
But of course it is the -game- not your system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457700</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>dogmatixpsych</author>
	<datestamp>1259683440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's too bad you had a poor experience. I purchased the game and never had a single problem with it on my almost 3 year old slim Dell (with an upgraded and decent but far from top of the line AMD/ATI card). I've never had a crash with the game and it runs very well on my slightly underpowered machine. I really think it is a driver problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's too bad you had a poor experience .
I purchased the game and never had a single problem with it on my almost 3 year old slim Dell ( with an upgraded and decent but far from top of the line AMD/ATI card ) .
I 've never had a crash with the game and it runs very well on my slightly underpowered machine .
I really think it is a driver problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's too bad you had a poor experience.
I purchased the game and never had a single problem with it on my almost 3 year old slim Dell (with an upgraded and decent but far from top of the line AMD/ATI card).
I've never had a crash with the game and it runs very well on my slightly underpowered machine.
I really think it is a driver problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455400</id>
	<title>Re:depends on the vendor</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EA has enough money too.<br>
<br>
The difference is that EA throws their money at acquiring competitors, and then spends as little as possible making sequels. The bad sequels eventually kill the brand name of the title, but not before they rake in massive profits.<br>
<br>
10 Acquire company with solid title<br>
20 Sell crappy sequels, earning major profits off the soon-to-be tarnished brand name of that title.<br>
30 Goto 10</htmltext>
<tokenext>EA has enough money too .
The difference is that EA throws their money at acquiring competitors , and then spends as little as possible making sequels .
The bad sequels eventually kill the brand name of the title , but not before they rake in massive profits .
10 Acquire company with solid title 20 Sell crappy sequels , earning major profits off the soon-to-be tarnished brand name of that title .
30 Goto 10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA has enough money too.
The difference is that EA throws their money at acquiring competitors, and then spends as little as possible making sequels.
The bad sequels eventually kill the brand name of the title, but not before they rake in massive profits.
10 Acquire company with solid title
20 Sell crappy sequels, earning major profits off the soon-to-be tarnished brand name of that title.
30 Goto 10</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457538</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1259682840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run. Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app,</p></div><p>Good. Then software developers will finally put some pressure on the OS developers to stop fucking around with bullshit and pseudo-features and start making sure that the OS becomes a reliable environment for the software it's supposed to run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a PC , the vendor ca n't control the environment in which their software is run .
Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app,Good .
Then software developers will finally put some pressure on the OS developers to stop fucking around with bullshit and pseudo-features and start making sure that the OS becomes a reliable environment for the software it 's supposed to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.
Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app,Good.
Then software developers will finally put some pressure on the OS developers to stop fucking around with bullshit and pseudo-features and start making sure that the OS becomes a reliable environment for the software it's supposed to run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456412</id>
	<title>To some extent, yes</title>
	<author>cgomezr</author>
	<datestamp>1259675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a clear correlation between game vastness/complexity and bugginess. As an old-time player of CRPG's, I have seen that almost in every occasion where someone released a CRPG of epic proportions, or otherwise groundbreaking, the game was much buggier than average (at least in its first version). Examples: Ultima VII, Ultima Underworld, Daggerfall, Fallout 1. More into the 4x genre, Master of Magic was also complex and groundbreaking and buggy as hell. All of these are cult games and widely considered not only among the best in their genre, but among the most complex, vast and nonlinear. The likes of Final Fantasy or Zelda, which are also cult games but much simpler and more linear in their design, didn't have many issues with bugginess as far as I can remember.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a clear correlation between game vastness/complexity and bugginess .
As an old-time player of CRPG 's , I have seen that almost in every occasion where someone released a CRPG of epic proportions , or otherwise groundbreaking , the game was much buggier than average ( at least in its first version ) .
Examples : Ultima VII , Ultima Underworld , Daggerfall , Fallout 1 .
More into the 4x genre , Master of Magic was also complex and groundbreaking and buggy as hell .
All of these are cult games and widely considered not only among the best in their genre , but among the most complex , vast and nonlinear .
The likes of Final Fantasy or Zelda , which are also cult games but much simpler and more linear in their design , did n't have many issues with bugginess as far as I can remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a clear correlation between game vastness/complexity and bugginess.
As an old-time player of CRPG's, I have seen that almost in every occasion where someone released a CRPG of epic proportions, or otherwise groundbreaking, the game was much buggier than average (at least in its first version).
Examples: Ultima VII, Ultima Underworld, Daggerfall, Fallout 1.
More into the 4x genre, Master of Magic was also complex and groundbreaking and buggy as hell.
All of these are cult games and widely considered not only among the best in their genre, but among the most complex, vast and nonlinear.
The likes of Final Fantasy or Zelda, which are also cult games but much simpler and more linear in their design, didn't have many issues with bugginess as far as I can remember.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457714</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that it doesn't work, and that the user can't return the thing. It doesn't MATTER whose fault it is. If I buy a 5oz hammer and realize that it won't hammer in railroad spikes, I can return the thing if it's in good condition. It doesn't matter that I'm the moron... I can still return it. I cannot do the same thing with a game. That is the issue... I've just dropped $50 on something that I can't fix, that was advertised to me as working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that it does n't work , and that the user ca n't return the thing .
It does n't MATTER whose fault it is .
If I buy a 5oz hammer and realize that it wo n't hammer in railroad spikes , I can return the thing if it 's in good condition .
It does n't matter that I 'm the moron... I can still return it .
I can not do the same thing with a game .
That is the issue... I 've just dropped $ 50 on something that I ca n't fix , that was advertised to me as working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that it doesn't work, and that the user can't return the thing.
It doesn't MATTER whose fault it is.
If I buy a 5oz hammer and realize that it won't hammer in railroad spikes, I can return the thing if it's in good condition.
It doesn't matter that I'm the moron... I can still return it.
I cannot do the same thing with a game.
That is the issue... I've just dropped $50 on something that I can't fix, that was advertised to me as working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459256</id>
	<title>Re:My two cents as a software developer</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1259689260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I've wondered about this. At $1000 per line, the price does indeed seem steep, but for software that's distributed very broadly (like the kernel of a major operating system), I don't think that's too high a price to pay. I expect that MS has paid far more than $1000 per line for what's now the NT kernel, and not because it was made right, but because it was made wrongly and needed extensive tweaks upon tweaks upon tweaks.<p>

But this will never apply to games, because in addition to the high price per line, NASA's software development is (deliberately) slow. When making games, the most important thing is to put it on the shelf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I 've wondered about this .
At $ 1000 per line , the price does indeed seem steep , but for software that 's distributed very broadly ( like the kernel of a major operating system ) , I do n't think that 's too high a price to pay .
I expect that MS has paid far more than $ 1000 per line for what 's now the NT kernel , and not because it was made right , but because it was made wrongly and needed extensive tweaks upon tweaks upon tweaks .
But this will never apply to games , because in addition to the high price per line , NASA 's software development is ( deliberately ) slow .
When making games , the most important thing is to put it on the shelf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I've wondered about this.
At $1000 per line, the price does indeed seem steep, but for software that's distributed very broadly (like the kernel of a major operating system), I don't think that's too high a price to pay.
I expect that MS has paid far more than $1000 per line for what's now the NT kernel, and not because it was made right, but because it was made wrongly and needed extensive tweaks upon tweaks upon tweaks.
But this will never apply to games, because in addition to the high price per line, NASA's software development is (deliberately) slow.
When making games, the most important thing is to put it on the shelf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459854</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, consumer protections for software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Software on non-life-critical applications has been given a free ride for two long"</p><p>Bitching about stuff you don't understand may only take 5 minutes of your time, but inability to spell your rants is priceless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Software on non-life-critical applications has been given a free ride for two long " Bitching about stuff you do n't understand may only take 5 minutes of your time , but inability to spell your rants is priceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Software on non-life-critical applications has been given a free ride for two long"Bitching about stuff you don't understand may only take 5 minutes of your time, but inability to spell your rants is priceless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457492</id>
	<title>I really hope this happens</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259682540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until the advent of internet connections for consoles, there was always a vast difference in the quality of console games and PC games. PC game devs took the attitude of just meeting a deadline and patching it later. Console devs didn't have that option.
<br> <br>
Now console have internet connections and a lot of those PC devs with their shitty attitudes moved over to consoles.
<br> <br>
The thing is a buggy game or OS doesn't work as it should can cause you to lose time invested. It's broken and you should have the right to return it rather than being treated like a criminal when you walk into a shop asking to return a game.
<br> <br>
Game reviews rarely mention bugs and to be fair it's because more often they're given a very limited amount of time to play the game which the publisher obviously does to cover up problems or so reviewers don't realise that actually it's a really boring game after the initial shine wears off of it being new.
<br> <br>
Consoles are all the same hardware. There is very little that should cause problems. The biggest problem is that devs simply aren't given the time and instead expected to pump out annual sequels to the same boring ass games. Maybe if people are allowed to start returning games for being buggy, they'll take more time to work on a game and as a by-product, spend a bit more time on the story and gameplay as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until the advent of internet connections for consoles , there was always a vast difference in the quality of console games and PC games .
PC game devs took the attitude of just meeting a deadline and patching it later .
Console devs did n't have that option .
Now console have internet connections and a lot of those PC devs with their shitty attitudes moved over to consoles .
The thing is a buggy game or OS does n't work as it should can cause you to lose time invested .
It 's broken and you should have the right to return it rather than being treated like a criminal when you walk into a shop asking to return a game .
Game reviews rarely mention bugs and to be fair it 's because more often they 're given a very limited amount of time to play the game which the publisher obviously does to cover up problems or so reviewers do n't realise that actually it 's a really boring game after the initial shine wears off of it being new .
Consoles are all the same hardware .
There is very little that should cause problems .
The biggest problem is that devs simply are n't given the time and instead expected to pump out annual sequels to the same boring ass games .
Maybe if people are allowed to start returning games for being buggy , they 'll take more time to work on a game and as a by-product , spend a bit more time on the story and gameplay as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until the advent of internet connections for consoles, there was always a vast difference in the quality of console games and PC games.
PC game devs took the attitude of just meeting a deadline and patching it later.
Console devs didn't have that option.
Now console have internet connections and a lot of those PC devs with their shitty attitudes moved over to consoles.
The thing is a buggy game or OS doesn't work as it should can cause you to lose time invested.
It's broken and you should have the right to return it rather than being treated like a criminal when you walk into a shop asking to return a game.
Game reviews rarely mention bugs and to be fair it's because more often they're given a very limited amount of time to play the game which the publisher obviously does to cover up problems or so reviewers don't realise that actually it's a really boring game after the initial shine wears off of it being new.
Consoles are all the same hardware.
There is very little that should cause problems.
The biggest problem is that devs simply aren't given the time and instead expected to pump out annual sequels to the same boring ass games.
Maybe if people are allowed to start returning games for being buggy, they'll take more time to work on a game and as a by-product, spend a bit more time on the story and gameplay as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302</id>
	<title>Yes and No</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laws that would force software producers to run proper QA testing is a stupid idea. If you deal with software, you learn after a while that "working software" is a sliding scale. It is unrealistic to expect any modern software to be completely bug free, similar to how you had to accept a small number of dead pixels on cheap LCD screens. On the other hand, many modern phones are released with OS:es that crash during calls (*cough* iphone *cough*) which I think is totally unacceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws that would force software producers to run proper QA testing is a stupid idea .
If you deal with software , you learn after a while that " working software " is a sliding scale .
It is unrealistic to expect any modern software to be completely bug free , similar to how you had to accept a small number of dead pixels on cheap LCD screens .
On the other hand , many modern phones are released with OS : es that crash during calls ( * cough * iphone * cough * ) which I think is totally unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws that would force software producers to run proper QA testing is a stupid idea.
If you deal with software, you learn after a while that "working software" is a sliding scale.
It is unrealistic to expect any modern software to be completely bug free, similar to how you had to accept a small number of dead pixels on cheap LCD screens.
On the other hand, many modern phones are released with OS:es that crash during calls (*cough* iphone *cough*) which I think is totally unacceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459022</id>
	<title>This is pure anti-piracy, nothing more</title>
	<author>garylian</author>
	<datestamp>1259688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole subject has little to do with software companies rushing out software in most cases.  It has a whole lot more to do with breaking the zero-day pirating scene.</p><p>If they leave in certain bugs that are certain to break the game about 2-4hrs in, then the zero-day piracy crowd (which relies on the cracked game being available before or on the day of release) have a game that won't work for them.  They either have to worry about cracking the patch, or buying the game.</p><p>What you buy when you get the game box is a very expensive demo copy.  Get your feel for the game, and then run into a crippling problem that prevents you from really advancing.  Then you have to download a patch, which will re-install the copy protection the zero-day pirates removed.</p><p>Those same zero-day pirates are usually a few days behind on the first patch, which means anyone who downloaded it is stuck, and either has to wait or buy a legitimate copy.</p><p>Really, you think these massive bugs really make it through Q/A without being noticed?  You think they are able to correct such bugs in about 24-48hrs, and a lot is taken care of?</p><p>NWN2 left in a crippling water effect when you got to the main city, which they had to patch out.  Really, they never saw that even high end machines came to a lag infested halt trying to walk around?</p><p>Besides, how many times do you see a game released on both PC and XBox 360/PS3, and the console versions don't have the same bugs, but the PC version is a mess?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole subject has little to do with software companies rushing out software in most cases .
It has a whole lot more to do with breaking the zero-day pirating scene.If they leave in certain bugs that are certain to break the game about 2-4hrs in , then the zero-day piracy crowd ( which relies on the cracked game being available before or on the day of release ) have a game that wo n't work for them .
They either have to worry about cracking the patch , or buying the game.What you buy when you get the game box is a very expensive demo copy .
Get your feel for the game , and then run into a crippling problem that prevents you from really advancing .
Then you have to download a patch , which will re-install the copy protection the zero-day pirates removed.Those same zero-day pirates are usually a few days behind on the first patch , which means anyone who downloaded it is stuck , and either has to wait or buy a legitimate copy.Really , you think these massive bugs really make it through Q/A without being noticed ?
You think they are able to correct such bugs in about 24-48hrs , and a lot is taken care of ? NWN2 left in a crippling water effect when you got to the main city , which they had to patch out .
Really , they never saw that even high end machines came to a lag infested halt trying to walk around ? Besides , how many times do you see a game released on both PC and XBox 360/PS3 , and the console versions do n't have the same bugs , but the PC version is a mess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole subject has little to do with software companies rushing out software in most cases.
It has a whole lot more to do with breaking the zero-day pirating scene.If they leave in certain bugs that are certain to break the game about 2-4hrs in, then the zero-day piracy crowd (which relies on the cracked game being available before or on the day of release) have a game that won't work for them.
They either have to worry about cracking the patch, or buying the game.What you buy when you get the game box is a very expensive demo copy.
Get your feel for the game, and then run into a crippling problem that prevents you from really advancing.
Then you have to download a patch, which will re-install the copy protection the zero-day pirates removed.Those same zero-day pirates are usually a few days behind on the first patch, which means anyone who downloaded it is stuck, and either has to wait or buy a legitimate copy.Really, you think these massive bugs really make it through Q/A without being noticed?
You think they are able to correct such bugs in about 24-48hrs, and a lot is taken care of?NWN2 left in a crippling water effect when you got to the main city, which they had to patch out.
Really, they never saw that even high end machines came to a lag infested halt trying to walk around?Besides, how many times do you see a game released on both PC and XBox 360/PS3, and the console versions don't have the same bugs, but the PC version is a mess?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458776</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy.</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1259687400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think what you describe is by any stretch "piracy", but you're getting close to the real problem: If it became possible to return "broken" software for a refund (especially games), you can bet that countless people would just buy a game, win it and get a refund, claiming it was broken. </p><p>How is the underpaid person at the service counter supposed to verify their claim? Must the customer bring in his machine and reproduce a serious bug while others wait in line? Not likely. Failing this, they would just have a list of "buggy" games and take the word of any customer who is trying to return one.</p><p>

This begs the question: Who would keep that list? What would be the standards by which a game gets put on the list? Won't EA and MS just make a deal with the list-makers that has them test and "certify" each release ahead of time? I have no reason to think that this would result in better software, but it certainly would be a big help for the rich, entrenched players: If any small competitor starts rising up, call his software "buggy", get it on the refund list, and cut off their air supply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think what you describe is by any stretch " piracy " , but you 're getting close to the real problem : If it became possible to return " broken " software for a refund ( especially games ) , you can bet that countless people would just buy a game , win it and get a refund , claiming it was broken .
How is the underpaid person at the service counter supposed to verify their claim ?
Must the customer bring in his machine and reproduce a serious bug while others wait in line ?
Not likely .
Failing this , they would just have a list of " buggy " games and take the word of any customer who is trying to return one .
This begs the question : Who would keep that list ?
What would be the standards by which a game gets put on the list ?
Wo n't EA and MS just make a deal with the list-makers that has them test and " certify " each release ahead of time ?
I have no reason to think that this would result in better software , but it certainly would be a big help for the rich , entrenched players : If any small competitor starts rising up , call his software " buggy " , get it on the refund list , and cut off their air supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think what you describe is by any stretch "piracy", but you're getting close to the real problem: If it became possible to return "broken" software for a refund (especially games), you can bet that countless people would just buy a game, win it and get a refund, claiming it was broken.
How is the underpaid person at the service counter supposed to verify their claim?
Must the customer bring in his machine and reproduce a serious bug while others wait in line?
Not likely.
Failing this, they would just have a list of "buggy" games and take the word of any customer who is trying to return one.
This begs the question: Who would keep that list?
What would be the standards by which a game gets put on the list?
Won't EA and MS just make a deal with the list-makers that has them test and "certify" each release ahead of time?
I have no reason to think that this would result in better software, but it certainly would be a big help for the rich, entrenched players: If any small competitor starts rising up, call his software "buggy", get it on the refund list, and cut off their air supply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30460330</id>
	<title>Free responsability.</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1259692980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me for not reading 270+ comments, but how does this affect open source even with it's disclaimer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me for not reading 270 + comments , but how does this affect open source even with it 's disclaimer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me for not reading 270+ comments, but how does this affect open source even with it's disclaimer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457068</id>
	<title>Re:Question with a question(s)....</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1259680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software with time based release cycles are doomed to have buggy releases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software with time based release cycles are doomed to have buggy releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software with time based release cycles are doomed to have buggy releases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456950</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>CowboyBob500</author>
	<datestamp>1259679480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Damn right I would want the law involved, this is a defective title but I can't do anything about it except trying it on some future computer and hoping that ME finds it satisfactory for whatever reason.</i>
<br> <br>
Why not just take it back to the shop and get your money back?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn right I would want the law involved , this is a defective title but I ca n't do anything about it except trying it on some future computer and hoping that ME finds it satisfactory for whatever reason .
Why not just take it back to the shop and get your money back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn right I would want the law involved, this is a defective title but I can't do anything about it except trying it on some future computer and hoping that ME finds it satisfactory for whatever reason.
Why not just take it back to the shop and get your money back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461800</id>
	<title>Great idea, if you want games to cost a lot more</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1259698620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reducing defects in code isn't free.  It's the opposite of free.  I wouldn't expect, as a video game consumer, the producers of these games are going to just eat that huge development cost; they're going to pass it right on.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;I think the idea that commercial software be judged by the same standards as other commercial products is not so crazy,&rdquo; [Tanenbaum] says. &ldquo;Cars, TVs, and telephones are all expected to work, and they are full of software. Why not standalone software?"</p></div><p>With all due respect to Tanenbaum, a modern video game is way more complex than a TV or telephone, and it has to run on a much wider variety of hardware.  I'm so surprised by his response that I wonder if he is being quoted out of context.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Wardell believes enforced refunds would be a disaster. &ldquo;When Demigod came out, there were people who couldn&rsquo;t launch the game, but it turned out to be due to Google Desktop. It had a system hook that was preventing Demigod from launching on some people&rsquo;s machines. We had to work around it. But whose bug is that? It wasn&rsquo;t really a bug at all: it was just incompatibility. Retailers are not in any position to make that call.&rdquo;</p></div><p>So imagine you spend the unheard-of amount of $100 million on testing to get a "defect-free" game that runs on every platform you can get your hands on, it goes gold, goes to press, and the day it gets on shelves, Google puts out a product that causes your game to not work.  Nice.</p><p>My vote is the system is fine the way it is.  If you can fix it for $zero, go for it.  Otherwise forget it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reducing defects in code is n't free .
It 's the opposite of free .
I would n't expect , as a video game consumer , the producers of these games are going to just eat that huge development cost ; they 're going to pass it right on.    I think the idea that commercial software be judged by the same standards as other commercial products is not so crazy ,    [ Tanenbaum ] says .
   Cars , TVs , and telephones are all expected to work , and they are full of software .
Why not standalone software ?
" With all due respect to Tanenbaum , a modern video game is way more complex than a TV or telephone , and it has to run on a much wider variety of hardware .
I 'm so surprised by his response that I wonder if he is being quoted out of context.Wardell believes enforced refunds would be a disaster .
   When Demigod came out , there were people who couldn    t launch the game , but it turned out to be due to Google Desktop .
It had a system hook that was preventing Demigod from launching on some people    s machines .
We had to work around it .
But whose bug is that ?
It wasn    t really a bug at all : it was just incompatibility .
Retailers are not in any position to make that call.    So imagine you spend the unheard-of amount of $ 100 million on testing to get a " defect-free " game that runs on every platform you can get your hands on , it goes gold , goes to press , and the day it gets on shelves , Google puts out a product that causes your game to not work .
Nice.My vote is the system is fine the way it is .
If you can fix it for $ zero , go for it .
Otherwise forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reducing defects in code isn't free.
It's the opposite of free.
I wouldn't expect, as a video game consumer, the producers of these games are going to just eat that huge development cost; they're going to pass it right on.“I think the idea that commercial software be judged by the same standards as other commercial products is not so crazy,” [Tanenbaum] says.
“Cars, TVs, and telephones are all expected to work, and they are full of software.
Why not standalone software?
"With all due respect to Tanenbaum, a modern video game is way more complex than a TV or telephone, and it has to run on a much wider variety of hardware.
I'm so surprised by his response that I wonder if he is being quoted out of context.Wardell believes enforced refunds would be a disaster.
“When Demigod came out, there were people who couldn’t launch the game, but it turned out to be due to Google Desktop.
It had a system hook that was preventing Demigod from launching on some people’s machines.
We had to work around it.
But whose bug is that?
It wasn’t really a bug at all: it was just incompatibility.
Retailers are not in any position to make that call.”So imagine you spend the unheard-of amount of $100 million on testing to get a "defect-free" game that runs on every platform you can get your hands on, it goes gold, goes to press, and the day it gets on shelves, Google puts out a product that causes your game to not work.
Nice.My vote is the system is fine the way it is.
If you can fix it for $zero, go for it.
Otherwise forget it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455954</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1259671980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Half-assed, rushed-to-release games are doomed to have buggy releases, regardless of complexity.</p><p>And now that all the damn consoles have net access and non-volatile secondary storage, it's not unreasonable to expect that they'd find some way to fuck up Tetris at launch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Half-assed , rushed-to-release games are doomed to have buggy releases , regardless of complexity.And now that all the damn consoles have net access and non-volatile secondary storage , it 's not unreasonable to expect that they 'd find some way to fuck up Tetris at launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Half-assed, rushed-to-release games are doomed to have buggy releases, regardless of complexity.And now that all the damn consoles have net access and non-volatile secondary storage, it's not unreasonable to expect that they'd find some way to fuck up Tetris at launch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461038</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you using Windows Vista or 7? If you're not running XP, then Mass Effect will always crash on startup if you do not run the program with administrator privileges (meaning, yes, you'll have to click through a UAC prompt every time you want to play the game).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you using Windows Vista or 7 ?
If you 're not running XP , then Mass Effect will always crash on startup if you do not run the program with administrator privileges ( meaning , yes , you 'll have to click through a UAC prompt every time you want to play the game ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you using Windows Vista or 7?
If you're not running XP, then Mass Effect will always crash on startup if you do not run the program with administrator privileges (meaning, yes, you'll have to click through a UAC prompt every time you want to play the game).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothings wrong with it...<br>But do you really expect the to? Get ready for the requirements on the box going from :</p><p>512MB RAM<br>P4 or better<br>1GB disk space free</p><p>to :</p><p>512 MB DDR2 533MHz Rambus RT32Q-12W/P series RAM<br>Asus MB983-001GIGM/S-4 Motherboard with AnusTech 56chipset and SuperHD-VGA 512Graphic2.0<br>With Seagate 120GB 7234.42rpm disk and Windows XP SP3 with no other software and all updates except Office excel ones and Adobe Reader4.3, and a shortcut to Notepad at position (34,102) on the desktop with that spiffy desert wallpaper. Also required Network interface card NT-IKK100M with a blue and red striped 1.56m cable that's coiled around the couch leg at 125deg.<br>Apparatus must be used in a constant 26.3 degrees with relative humidity of 20\% and 1024mbar pressure.</p><p>This is just fucking idiocy. Any half decent company is going to give refunds (or fix the bugs) if they care about their customers.<br>Those who don't will vanish and the suckers who bought their stuff will lose their money (much like the morons who buy rolex watches from email or the spastics who send their life saving to nigerian princes).</p><p>This is just going to fuck the smaller operators over who don't have the resources for testing every combination of software/hardware. As a example, a "normal" piece of software will be available on :</p><p>Win XP<br>Vista<br>Win 7<br>Win2k</p><p>x2 for 32 and 64 bit. And various combinations of Admin user, UAC on, regular user limited etc.</p><p>Then add Various flavours of server type deployments (Windows server 2000,2003,2008, citrix, TS etc).<br>Now add various doc management systems (eg sharepoint) integration.<br>Then sprinkle some scanner, printer and networked hardware deployments.<br>And this isn't even considering what other applications are going to be interacting with the system and issues with PS,PCL and GDI printing/drawing commands.</p><p>Fuck me... this is from experience... I need a beer now. And this is for a simple desktop general office productivity app.</p><p>The app code is tested and the app is tested, but there's no telling what the hell kind of environment it's going to be deployed in.</p><p>While we're at it, why not require that all software sold needs to be mathematically proven to be correct. That'll be easy right?</p><p>Hmmm.. I feel kind of better now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothings wrong with it...But do you really expect the to ?
Get ready for the requirements on the box going from : 512MB RAMP4 or better1GB disk space freeto : 512 MB DDR2 533MHz Rambus RT32Q-12W/P series RAMAsus MB983-001GIGM/S-4 Motherboard with AnusTech 56chipset and SuperHD-VGA 512Graphic2.0With Seagate 120GB 7234.42rpm disk and Windows XP SP3 with no other software and all updates except Office excel ones and Adobe Reader4.3 , and a shortcut to Notepad at position ( 34,102 ) on the desktop with that spiffy desert wallpaper .
Also required Network interface card NT-IKK100M with a blue and red striped 1.56m cable that 's coiled around the couch leg at 125deg.Apparatus must be used in a constant 26.3 degrees with relative humidity of 20 \ % and 1024mbar pressure.This is just fucking idiocy .
Any half decent company is going to give refunds ( or fix the bugs ) if they care about their customers.Those who do n't will vanish and the suckers who bought their stuff will lose their money ( much like the morons who buy rolex watches from email or the spastics who send their life saving to nigerian princes ) .This is just going to fuck the smaller operators over who do n't have the resources for testing every combination of software/hardware .
As a example , a " normal " piece of software will be available on : Win XPVistaWin 7Win2kx2 for 32 and 64 bit .
And various combinations of Admin user , UAC on , regular user limited etc.Then add Various flavours of server type deployments ( Windows server 2000,2003,2008 , citrix , TS etc ) .Now add various doc management systems ( eg sharepoint ) integration.Then sprinkle some scanner , printer and networked hardware deployments.And this is n't even considering what other applications are going to be interacting with the system and issues with PS,PCL and GDI printing/drawing commands.Fuck me... this is from experience... I need a beer now .
And this is for a simple desktop general office productivity app.The app code is tested and the app is tested , but there 's no telling what the hell kind of environment it 's going to be deployed in.While we 're at it , why not require that all software sold needs to be mathematically proven to be correct .
That 'll be easy right ? Hmmm.. I feel kind of better now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothings wrong with it...But do you really expect the to?
Get ready for the requirements on the box going from :512MB RAMP4 or better1GB disk space freeto :512 MB DDR2 533MHz Rambus RT32Q-12W/P series RAMAsus MB983-001GIGM/S-4 Motherboard with AnusTech 56chipset and SuperHD-VGA 512Graphic2.0With Seagate 120GB 7234.42rpm disk and Windows XP SP3 with no other software and all updates except Office excel ones and Adobe Reader4.3, and a shortcut to Notepad at position (34,102) on the desktop with that spiffy desert wallpaper.
Also required Network interface card NT-IKK100M with a blue and red striped 1.56m cable that's coiled around the couch leg at 125deg.Apparatus must be used in a constant 26.3 degrees with relative humidity of 20\% and 1024mbar pressure.This is just fucking idiocy.
Any half decent company is going to give refunds (or fix the bugs) if they care about their customers.Those who don't will vanish and the suckers who bought their stuff will lose their money (much like the morons who buy rolex watches from email or the spastics who send their life saving to nigerian princes).This is just going to fuck the smaller operators over who don't have the resources for testing every combination of software/hardware.
As a example, a "normal" piece of software will be available on :Win XPVistaWin 7Win2kx2 for 32 and 64 bit.
And various combinations of Admin user, UAC on, regular user limited etc.Then add Various flavours of server type deployments (Windows server 2000,2003,2008, citrix, TS etc).Now add various doc management systems (eg sharepoint) integration.Then sprinkle some scanner, printer and networked hardware deployments.And this isn't even considering what other applications are going to be interacting with the system and issues with PS,PCL and GDI printing/drawing commands.Fuck me... this is from experience... I need a beer now.
And this is for a simple desktop general office productivity app.The app code is tested and the app is tested, but there's no telling what the hell kind of environment it's going to be deployed in.While we're at it, why not require that all software sold needs to be mathematically proven to be correct.
That'll be easy right?Hmmm.. I feel kind of better now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455502</id>
	<title>Re:depends on the vendor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the vendors that constantly have buggy initial releases are the same consistently.</p><p>EA?  I expect a buggy release or a release that doesn't run well or at all.</p><p>Blizzard?  Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days.  Blizzard has enough money and enough of a following that they don't have to shove software out before it's ready.  Their recent betas seem to have fewer bugs than other studios' releases.</p></div><p>Blizzard?!? They haven't shipped a game in nearly 5 years!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and WoW was patched near constantly for the first year of its life.<br>Expansions, maybe - but games? It's been a long time!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the vendors that constantly have buggy initial releases are the same consistently.EA ?
I expect a buggy release or a release that does n't run well or at all.Blizzard ?
Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days .
Blizzard has enough money and enough of a following that they do n't have to shove software out before it 's ready .
Their recent betas seem to have fewer bugs than other studios ' releases.Blizzard ? ! ?
They have n't shipped a game in nearly 5 years !
...and WoW was patched near constantly for the first year of its life.Expansions , maybe - but games ?
It 's been a long time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the vendors that constantly have buggy initial releases are the same consistently.EA?
I expect a buggy release or a release that doesn't run well or at all.Blizzard?
Mostly ships pretty functional games or expansions these days.
Blizzard has enough money and enough of a following that they don't have to shove software out before it's ready.
Their recent betas seem to have fewer bugs than other studios' releases.Blizzard?!?
They haven't shipped a game in nearly 5 years!
...and WoW was patched near constantly for the first year of its life.Expansions, maybe - but games?
It's been a long time!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455534</id>
	<title>Re:What about Betas?</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1259668080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you pay for a beta <b>by itself</b>?<br>
Are you an imbecile?<br>
Hint: both questions have the same answer. If you pay for a "beta", the price paid should include a subsequent upgrade to the released version, or a full refund if no release is forthcoming in a stated time (the expiry date of the beta, perhaps). Looking at it a different way, you have pre-paid for the released version, and the beta is given as a freebie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you pay for a beta by itself ?
Are you an imbecile ?
Hint : both questions have the same answer .
If you pay for a " beta " , the price paid should include a subsequent upgrade to the released version , or a full refund if no release is forthcoming in a stated time ( the expiry date of the beta , perhaps ) .
Looking at it a different way , you have pre-paid for the released version , and the beta is given as a freebie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you pay for a beta by itself?
Are you an imbecile?
Hint: both questions have the same answer.
If you pay for a "beta", the price paid should include a subsequent upgrade to the released version, or a full refund if no release is forthcoming in a stated time (the expiry date of the beta, perhaps).
Looking at it a different way, you have pre-paid for the released version, and the beta is given as a freebie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455370</id>
	<title>Re:Along the same lines...</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1259666460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cars dont change that much, Operating systems, hardware, and the speed at which they process data do.  You do this, they will start making games "OEM". Install on one system only, and only the one they support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars dont change that much , Operating systems , hardware , and the speed at which they process data do .
You do this , they will start making games " OEM " .
Install on one system only , and only the one they support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars dont change that much, Operating systems, hardware, and the speed at which they process data do.
You do this, they will start making games "OEM".
Install on one system only, and only the one they support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457272</id>
	<title>Patches and Bugs</title>
	<author>ViViDboarder</author>
	<datestamp>1259681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, I don't have any problem with software being patched after release as long as support is there for released software.  <br> <br>
What pisses me off is when developers leave their software buggy after a couple patches and then just release a new game for you to buy instead.  (See EA Games)  I don't expect software to be bug free at release but I do expect most of the bugs to be fixed shortly and there to be continued support as bugs show up.  If you buy any other product and it breaks (IE, you find a bug) they fix it.<br> <br>
Also, any "known bugs" on release should be documented.  Put it on the box with an address for Known Issues.  Then if you are thinking of buying the software you can judge if it's worth it yet or not.  Check back and when you find that the bugs you can't deal with are gone, you buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I do n't have any problem with software being patched after release as long as support is there for released software .
What pisses me off is when developers leave their software buggy after a couple patches and then just release a new game for you to buy instead .
( See EA Games ) I do n't expect software to be bug free at release but I do expect most of the bugs to be fixed shortly and there to be continued support as bugs show up .
If you buy any other product and it breaks ( IE , you find a bug ) they fix it .
Also , any " known bugs " on release should be documented .
Put it on the box with an address for Known Issues .
Then if you are thinking of buying the software you can judge if it 's worth it yet or not .
Check back and when you find that the bugs you ca n't deal with are gone , you buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I don't have any problem with software being patched after release as long as support is there for released software.
What pisses me off is when developers leave their software buggy after a couple patches and then just release a new game for you to buy instead.
(See EA Games)  I don't expect software to be bug free at release but I do expect most of the bugs to be fixed shortly and there to be continued support as bugs show up.
If you buy any other product and it breaks (IE, you find a bug) they fix it.
Also, any "known bugs" on release should be documented.
Put it on the box with an address for Known Issues.
Then if you are thinking of buying the software you can judge if it's worth it yet or not.
Check back and when you find that the bugs you can't deal with are gone, you buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461266</id>
	<title>Complexity causes bugs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I understand the frustration with software bugs, I think the people advancing this position are turning a blind eye to an obvious difference between software products and things such as washers, dryers and cars.</p><p>Software products are critically dependent on the environment that they operate in and that dependency happens in hundreds of subtle ways.  Furthermore, the software vendor has little to no control over the environment that they must run their product in.</p><p>Items such as washers, dryers, cars, etc are more or less completely self-contained.  The only external dependencies for a washer is an electrical outlet and a water hose.  Well, and gravity to hold it in place on the floor.  They have only a handful of external dependencies and the ones they have are very, very simple.</p><p>There is another distinction which is the number of functions that the product performs (put another way, the complexity of the product).  Most any commercial software product has orders of magnitude more complexity than a washer/dryer.  Trying to say that they are all the same because there is an embedded microprocessor somewhere running a 16KB monitoring program is a specious argument.  The 16KB monitoring program operates in a very small and well defined problem space and performs a relatively small number of operations compared to software such as games, word processors, etc.</p><p>Funny thing is &ndash; devices such as cars and TVs *are* actually starting to show some of the same faulty behavior normally attributed to software because they are increasing the complexity of the devices.  So the argument that software should just work because TVs just work is also specious.</p><p>Bottom line &ndash; software bugs are a result of product complexity.  Any product which becomes sufficiently complex is going to start exhibiting the same sort of behavior.  It is a fundamental problem with complexity.  Trying to legislate bugs away is going to work about as well as it did to legislate the value of Pi to be &ldquo;3&rdquo; because the real number was too hard to remember</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I understand the frustration with software bugs , I think the people advancing this position are turning a blind eye to an obvious difference between software products and things such as washers , dryers and cars.Software products are critically dependent on the environment that they operate in and that dependency happens in hundreds of subtle ways .
Furthermore , the software vendor has little to no control over the environment that they must run their product in.Items such as washers , dryers , cars , etc are more or less completely self-contained .
The only external dependencies for a washer is an electrical outlet and a water hose .
Well , and gravity to hold it in place on the floor .
They have only a handful of external dependencies and the ones they have are very , very simple.There is another distinction which is the number of functions that the product performs ( put another way , the complexity of the product ) .
Most any commercial software product has orders of magnitude more complexity than a washer/dryer .
Trying to say that they are all the same because there is an embedded microprocessor somewhere running a 16KB monitoring program is a specious argument .
The 16KB monitoring program operates in a very small and well defined problem space and performs a relatively small number of operations compared to software such as games , word processors , etc.Funny thing is    devices such as cars and TVs * are * actually starting to show some of the same faulty behavior normally attributed to software because they are increasing the complexity of the devices .
So the argument that software should just work because TVs just work is also specious.Bottom line    software bugs are a result of product complexity .
Any product which becomes sufficiently complex is going to start exhibiting the same sort of behavior .
It is a fundamental problem with complexity .
Trying to legislate bugs away is going to work about as well as it did to legislate the value of Pi to be    3    because the real number was too hard to remember</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I understand the frustration with software bugs, I think the people advancing this position are turning a blind eye to an obvious difference between software products and things such as washers, dryers and cars.Software products are critically dependent on the environment that they operate in and that dependency happens in hundreds of subtle ways.
Furthermore, the software vendor has little to no control over the environment that they must run their product in.Items such as washers, dryers, cars, etc are more or less completely self-contained.
The only external dependencies for a washer is an electrical outlet and a water hose.
Well, and gravity to hold it in place on the floor.
They have only a handful of external dependencies and the ones they have are very, very simple.There is another distinction which is the number of functions that the product performs (put another way, the complexity of the product).
Most any commercial software product has orders of magnitude more complexity than a washer/dryer.
Trying to say that they are all the same because there is an embedded microprocessor somewhere running a 16KB monitoring program is a specious argument.
The 16KB monitoring program operates in a very small and well defined problem space and performs a relatively small number of operations compared to software such as games, word processors, etc.Funny thing is – devices such as cars and TVs *are* actually starting to show some of the same faulty behavior normally attributed to software because they are increasing the complexity of the devices.
So the argument that software should just work because TVs just work is also specious.Bottom line – software bugs are a result of product complexity.
Any product which becomes sufficiently complex is going to start exhibiting the same sort of behavior.
It is a fundamental problem with complexity.
Trying to legislate bugs away is going to work about as well as it did to legislate the value of Pi to be “3” because the real number was too hard to remember</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30465640</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't there a difference?</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1259667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Isn't there a bit of a difference there between the examples (TVs, DVD players, etc) and PC software?</p></div></blockquote><p>Not these days. Both my DVD player and my TV have required software patches to fix bugs that they shipped with. The DVD player wouldn't play some files it claimed to be able to play, and the TV would randomly turn itself off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there a bit of a difference there between the examples ( TVs , DVD players , etc ) and PC software ? Not these days .
Both my DVD player and my TV have required software patches to fix bugs that they shipped with .
The DVD player would n't play some files it claimed to be able to play , and the TV would randomly turn itself off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there a bit of a difference there between the examples (TVs, DVD players, etc) and PC software?Not these days.
Both my DVD player and my TV have required software patches to fix bugs that they shipped with.
The DVD player wouldn't play some files it claimed to be able to play, and the TV would randomly turn itself off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463214</id>
	<title>Including PC test cases on the install disc</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259659620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram?</p></div><p>If a game publisher knows that RAM problems have caused failures on past games, it's not hard to make a game's install DVD bootable to memtest86 or other Free diagnostic tools.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Should the developer pay because one or more of your components do not follow the specs, or deviate significantly from what was standard practice at the time the software was developed?</p></div><p>The game's installer can include a troubleshooting button that runs dxdiag and possibly another test suite exercising the specs on which the program is known to rely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram ? If a game publisher knows that RAM problems have caused failures on past games , it 's not hard to make a game 's install DVD bootable to memtest86 or other Free diagnostic tools.Should the developer pay because one or more of your components do not follow the specs , or deviate significantly from what was standard practice at the time the software was developed ? The game 's installer can include a troubleshooting button that runs dxdiag and possibly another test suite exercising the specs on which the program is known to rely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram?If a game publisher knows that RAM problems have caused failures on past games, it's not hard to make a game's install DVD bootable to memtest86 or other Free diagnostic tools.Should the developer pay because one or more of your components do not follow the specs, or deviate significantly from what was standard practice at the time the software was developed?The game's installer can include a troubleshooting button that runs dxdiag and possibly another test suite exercising the specs on which the program is known to rely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314</id>
	<title>Finally, consumer protections for software</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1259665740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just games: most consumer electronics nowadays are a mix of software and hardware and often enough it's the software part that is released unfinished (read: buggy).</p><p>Software on non-life-critical applications has been given a free ride for two long - if it's not acceptable that a DVD player refuses to start at odd moments or randomly stops working, why would the same be acceptable in a computer game (which is just another for of entertainment) or an OS?</p><p>As somebody working in IT, who has worked in the industry in both IT Services and IT Products, I've seen again and again the main behaviours that lead to buggy software releases:<br>a) No real software development process resulting in unpredictability with regards to the <b>real</b> finish date.<br>b) Bad requirements definitions, stuffed with incomplete, inconsistent and unclear "desires", with way too much time wasted in "would be nice" requirements leading to last minute requirements changes as people discover the missing/bad bits.<br>c) Little or no real testing, mostly done by amateurs (or worse, developers).<br>d) Hard deadlines set by sales and marketing which, coupled with the points above, results in releases of unfinished products.</p><p>The reason why this happen is very simple: companies can get away with this, so management (from top to bottom) can get away with being disorganized, unstructured, "shoot-from-the-hip" cowboy-like, non-proactive and outright incompetent.</p><p>(yes, I AM sour about this)</p><p>Funny enough, buyers of software products and services are so used to be royally done by the industry that some of the worst offenders in this space are actually the larger IT companies, not the smaller ones: in a playing field were buyers expected and valued quality in software, the higher-quality companies would outcompete and outgrow the low-quality ones, and yet what we see is the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just games : most consumer electronics nowadays are a mix of software and hardware and often enough it 's the software part that is released unfinished ( read : buggy ) .Software on non-life-critical applications has been given a free ride for two long - if it 's not acceptable that a DVD player refuses to start at odd moments or randomly stops working , why would the same be acceptable in a computer game ( which is just another for of entertainment ) or an OS ? As somebody working in IT , who has worked in the industry in both IT Services and IT Products , I 've seen again and again the main behaviours that lead to buggy software releases : a ) No real software development process resulting in unpredictability with regards to the real finish date.b ) Bad requirements definitions , stuffed with incomplete , inconsistent and unclear " desires " , with way too much time wasted in " would be nice " requirements leading to last minute requirements changes as people discover the missing/bad bits.c ) Little or no real testing , mostly done by amateurs ( or worse , developers ) .d ) Hard deadlines set by sales and marketing which , coupled with the points above , results in releases of unfinished products.The reason why this happen is very simple : companies can get away with this , so management ( from top to bottom ) can get away with being disorganized , unstructured , " shoot-from-the-hip " cowboy-like , non-proactive and outright incompetent .
( yes , I AM sour about this ) Funny enough , buyers of software products and services are so used to be royally done by the industry that some of the worst offenders in this space are actually the larger IT companies , not the smaller ones : in a playing field were buyers expected and valued quality in software , the higher-quality companies would outcompete and outgrow the low-quality ones , and yet what we see is the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just games: most consumer electronics nowadays are a mix of software and hardware and often enough it's the software part that is released unfinished (read: buggy).Software on non-life-critical applications has been given a free ride for two long - if it's not acceptable that a DVD player refuses to start at odd moments or randomly stops working, why would the same be acceptable in a computer game (which is just another for of entertainment) or an OS?As somebody working in IT, who has worked in the industry in both IT Services and IT Products, I've seen again and again the main behaviours that lead to buggy software releases:a) No real software development process resulting in unpredictability with regards to the real finish date.b) Bad requirements definitions, stuffed with incomplete, inconsistent and unclear "desires", with way too much time wasted in "would be nice" requirements leading to last minute requirements changes as people discover the missing/bad bits.c) Little or no real testing, mostly done by amateurs (or worse, developers).d) Hard deadlines set by sales and marketing which, coupled with the points above, results in releases of unfinished products.The reason why this happen is very simple: companies can get away with this, so management (from top to bottom) can get away with being disorganized, unstructured, "shoot-from-the-hip" cowboy-like, non-proactive and outright incompetent.
(yes, I AM sour about this)Funny enough, buyers of software products and services are so used to be royally done by the industry that some of the worst offenders in this space are actually the larger IT companies, not the smaller ones: in a playing field were buyers expected and valued quality in software, the higher-quality companies would outcompete and outgrow the low-quality ones, and yet what we see is the opposite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30462688</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>rolando2424</author>
	<datestamp>1259701080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a example, a "normal" piece of software will be available on :

Win XP
Vista
Win 7
Win2k</p></div><p>Notice for example that you didn't say Linux or OSX.</p><p>If this goes through, I think that the software boxes would start to say "This software was tested on this system, with this caracteristics and there may be different behaviour (that we can't be hold responsible for) on different configurations."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a example , a " normal " piece of software will be available on : Win XP Vista Win 7 Win2kNotice for example that you did n't say Linux or OSX.If this goes through , I think that the software boxes would start to say " This software was tested on this system , with this caracteristics and there may be different behaviour ( that we ca n't be hold responsible for ) on different configurations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a example, a "normal" piece of software will be available on :

Win XP
Vista
Win 7
Win2kNotice for example that you didn't say Linux or OSX.If this goes through, I think that the software boxes would start to say "This software was tested on this system, with this caracteristics and there may be different behaviour (that we can't be hold responsible for) on different configurations.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458592</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy.</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1259686680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I might buy Call of Duty, then, said it was "broken", and returned it.</p></div><p>I can see a similar phenomenon as people buying large HDTVs right before the Super Bowl and returning them on Monday, basically a 'free' rental.  With games, I don't see anything but this becoming more common, due to the reduced difficulty of returning a game compared to a 50" television.  Buy the game, burn through the single player in a weekend, then return the game claiming some inconsequential glitch.  That's extra cost for the retailers dealing with returns and repackaging, and extra cost to the publishers if the retailers send the games back to them.
</p><p>The only way to stop the system from being abused (so it can stay around for when it's needed) would be putting specific requirements on what can and can't be returned, but we all know how well our judicial system does <em>that</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might buy Call of Duty , then , said it was " broken " , and returned it.I can see a similar phenomenon as people buying large HDTVs right before the Super Bowl and returning them on Monday , basically a 'free ' rental .
With games , I do n't see anything but this becoming more common , due to the reduced difficulty of returning a game compared to a 50 " television .
Buy the game , burn through the single player in a weekend , then return the game claiming some inconsequential glitch .
That 's extra cost for the retailers dealing with returns and repackaging , and extra cost to the publishers if the retailers send the games back to them .
The only way to stop the system from being abused ( so it can stay around for when it 's needed ) would be putting specific requirements on what can and ca n't be returned , but we all know how well our judicial system does that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might buy Call of Duty, then, said it was "broken", and returned it.I can see a similar phenomenon as people buying large HDTVs right before the Super Bowl and returning them on Monday, basically a 'free' rental.
With games, I don't see anything but this becoming more common, due to the reduced difficulty of returning a game compared to a 50" television.
Buy the game, burn through the single player in a weekend, then return the game claiming some inconsequential glitch.
That's extra cost for the retailers dealing with returns and repackaging, and extra cost to the publishers if the retailers send the games back to them.
The only way to stop the system from being abused (so it can stay around for when it's needed) would be putting specific requirements on what can and can't be returned, but we all know how well our judicial system does that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456148</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The core of the problem is that games are today not much different from many other applications: They don't have a single manufacturer anymore.</p><p>Games in the old days had one maker. It wasn't even uncommon to have a single person writing it. And you will notice that these are usually also the ones that worked the best.</p><p>Later you had games that were done by a team of people who often had no idea what the rest of the team did. Programmers that had no idea of graphics, graphics artists that couldn't write a line of code if their life depended on it. Interface designers who were given a programming interface with no idea what happened with their data behind it. And so on.</p><p>Today you have interfaces to deal with that aren't developed in house anymore. Drivers for graphics and sound cards, hundreds if not thousands of them, all different and all allegedly offering the same interface. Sadly, only more or less. You have to rely on those interfaces, for good or ill.</p><p>And to make matters worse, you have to deal with software that is eventually dropped on top of your product. Namely, copy protection mechanisms that often by themselves are anything but beneficial for the stability of a system.</p><p>Now try to develop a stable, working product despite all the help you get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The core of the problem is that games are today not much different from many other applications : They do n't have a single manufacturer anymore.Games in the old days had one maker .
It was n't even uncommon to have a single person writing it .
And you will notice that these are usually also the ones that worked the best.Later you had games that were done by a team of people who often had no idea what the rest of the team did .
Programmers that had no idea of graphics , graphics artists that could n't write a line of code if their life depended on it .
Interface designers who were given a programming interface with no idea what happened with their data behind it .
And so on.Today you have interfaces to deal with that are n't developed in house anymore .
Drivers for graphics and sound cards , hundreds if not thousands of them , all different and all allegedly offering the same interface .
Sadly , only more or less .
You have to rely on those interfaces , for good or ill.And to make matters worse , you have to deal with software that is eventually dropped on top of your product .
Namely , copy protection mechanisms that often by themselves are anything but beneficial for the stability of a system.Now try to develop a stable , working product despite all the help you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The core of the problem is that games are today not much different from many other applications: They don't have a single manufacturer anymore.Games in the old days had one maker.
It wasn't even uncommon to have a single person writing it.
And you will notice that these are usually also the ones that worked the best.Later you had games that were done by a team of people who often had no idea what the rest of the team did.
Programmers that had no idea of graphics, graphics artists that couldn't write a line of code if their life depended on it.
Interface designers who were given a programming interface with no idea what happened with their data behind it.
And so on.Today you have interfaces to deal with that aren't developed in house anymore.
Drivers for graphics and sound cards, hundreds if not thousands of them, all different and all allegedly offering the same interface.
Sadly, only more or less.
You have to rely on those interfaces, for good or ill.And to make matters worse, you have to deal with software that is eventually dropped on top of your product.
Namely, copy protection mechanisms that often by themselves are anything but beneficial for the stability of a system.Now try to develop a stable, working product despite all the help you get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461382</id>
	<title>Stardock.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1259696760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Specifically, they require you to go through technical support before they'll even talk to you about a refund. Tech support is free -- the idea is that if you're returning it because of some aspect of it being "broken", they should be given a chance to fix that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically , they require you to go through technical support before they 'll even talk to you about a refund .
Tech support is free -- the idea is that if you 're returning it because of some aspect of it being " broken " , they should be given a chance to fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically, they require you to go through technical support before they'll even talk to you about a refund.
Tech support is free -- the idea is that if you're returning it because of some aspect of it being "broken", they should be given a chance to fix that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458822</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1259687640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moot point. Game has bug. It doesn't matter what's 'at fault' it just doesn't work. I return it, you give money back, and everyone's happy. Perhaps more so, as your customers have peace of mind.
<br>
If your game is not shoddy shonky crap, then you don't get many returns, and it's mostly a moot point. If you it is, and you do, you deserved it. Everyone's happy. Well, except you, if you're the guy that makes shoddy shonky crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moot point .
Game has bug .
It does n't matter what 's 'at fault ' it just does n't work .
I return it , you give money back , and everyone 's happy .
Perhaps more so , as your customers have peace of mind .
If your game is not shoddy shonky crap , then you do n't get many returns , and it 's mostly a moot point .
If you it is , and you do , you deserved it .
Everyone 's happy .
Well , except you , if you 're the guy that makes shoddy shonky crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moot point.
Game has bug.
It doesn't matter what's 'at fault' it just doesn't work.
I return it, you give money back, and everyone's happy.
Perhaps more so, as your customers have peace of mind.
If your game is not shoddy shonky crap, then you don't get many returns, and it's mostly a moot point.
If you it is, and you do, you deserved it.
Everyone's happy.
Well, except you, if you're the guy that makes shoddy shonky crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455444</id>
	<title>Even *Simple* games can be broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have any of you played Guitar Hero 3 for the Wii?</p><p>It's a fairly simple game, right?  You have an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp3 file, and paired with it you have a file containing a list of tuples (time, subset of buttons {1,2,3,4,5}), then you "play back" those two files simultaneously and see if the users strums while holding down the correct subsets within some well-defined window of time.</p><p>You can put the game in a "broken" state (requiring you to back out to the main menu); I don't recall exactly how, but I think it's when you, from practice mode, change the practice speed, you get dumped back to a dysfunctional practice mode screen.</p><p>If you tell the game your monitor (TV) has a certain delay, when you practice at less than 1x regular speed, apparently the game thinks it should not just scale the time differences in the list-of-subsets file but also that your monitor takes longer time to show pictures.  Morons.</p><p>And the menu structure is big, menu items are inconsistently named, and the structure itself is poorly aligned with what people want to do.  Bad usability.  Example: I want to give up on a song, so I choose quit;  "Do you really want to quit; unsaved progress will be lost?" (wtf, there's no <em>way</em> to actually save progress...).  Well, "Yes I want to quit".  "Ok, where do you want to quit to?  Main menu, song list, or retry this song?"  What??? If I wanted to retry the song, I would have selected the "retry song" menu item.  The only reason having a choice here is good is because it takes so unbearably long to navigate from the song list to the main menu.</p><p>And couldn't they have added an option to compensate for broken TVs which not only have picture lag, but have slightly desynchronized audio and picture?  Would that really have been too hard?  (Well, apparently...)</p><p>For such a brilliantly designed game play, the implementation (and the design of the things that go around the game play) is unbelievably crappy.  I'm seriously doubting <em>whether</em> they tested it.</p><p>(And what was that thing about shipping discs with <em>mono</em> audio?)</p><p>Seriously, avoid GH3/Wii.  If you <em>must</em> show off by completing (or FC'ing) TTFAF on expert, do it some other platform.  It's for your own good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have any of you played Guitar Hero 3 for the Wii ? It 's a fairly simple game , right ?
You have an .mp3 file , and paired with it you have a file containing a list of tuples ( time , subset of buttons { 1,2,3,4,5 } ) , then you " play back " those two files simultaneously and see if the users strums while holding down the correct subsets within some well-defined window of time.You can put the game in a " broken " state ( requiring you to back out to the main menu ) ; I do n't recall exactly how , but I think it 's when you , from practice mode , change the practice speed , you get dumped back to a dysfunctional practice mode screen.If you tell the game your monitor ( TV ) has a certain delay , when you practice at less than 1x regular speed , apparently the game thinks it should not just scale the time differences in the list-of-subsets file but also that your monitor takes longer time to show pictures .
Morons.And the menu structure is big , menu items are inconsistently named , and the structure itself is poorly aligned with what people want to do .
Bad usability .
Example : I want to give up on a song , so I choose quit ; " Do you really want to quit ; unsaved progress will be lost ?
" ( wtf , there 's no way to actually save progress... ) .
Well , " Yes I want to quit " .
" Ok , where do you want to quit to ?
Main menu , song list , or retry this song ?
" What ? ? ?
If I wanted to retry the song , I would have selected the " retry song " menu item .
The only reason having a choice here is good is because it takes so unbearably long to navigate from the song list to the main menu.And could n't they have added an option to compensate for broken TVs which not only have picture lag , but have slightly desynchronized audio and picture ?
Would that really have been too hard ?
( Well , apparently... ) For such a brilliantly designed game play , the implementation ( and the design of the things that go around the game play ) is unbelievably crappy .
I 'm seriously doubting whether they tested it .
( And what was that thing about shipping discs with mono audio ?
) Seriously , avoid GH3/Wii .
If you must show off by completing ( or FC'ing ) TTFAF on expert , do it some other platform .
It 's for your own good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have any of you played Guitar Hero 3 for the Wii?It's a fairly simple game, right?
You have an .mp3 file, and paired with it you have a file containing a list of tuples (time, subset of buttons {1,2,3,4,5}), then you "play back" those two files simultaneously and see if the users strums while holding down the correct subsets within some well-defined window of time.You can put the game in a "broken" state (requiring you to back out to the main menu); I don't recall exactly how, but I think it's when you, from practice mode, change the practice speed, you get dumped back to a dysfunctional practice mode screen.If you tell the game your monitor (TV) has a certain delay, when you practice at less than 1x regular speed, apparently the game thinks it should not just scale the time differences in the list-of-subsets file but also that your monitor takes longer time to show pictures.
Morons.And the menu structure is big, menu items are inconsistently named, and the structure itself is poorly aligned with what people want to do.
Bad usability.
Example: I want to give up on a song, so I choose quit;  "Do you really want to quit; unsaved progress will be lost?
" (wtf, there's no way to actually save progress...).
Well, "Yes I want to quit".
"Ok, where do you want to quit to?
Main menu, song list, or retry this song?
"  What???
If I wanted to retry the song, I would have selected the "retry song" menu item.
The only reason having a choice here is good is because it takes so unbearably long to navigate from the song list to the main menu.And couldn't they have added an option to compensate for broken TVs which not only have picture lag, but have slightly desynchronized audio and picture?
Would that really have been too hard?
(Well, apparently...)For such a brilliantly designed game play, the implementation (and the design of the things that go around the game play) is unbelievably crappy.
I'm seriously doubting whether they tested it.
(And what was that thing about shipping discs with mono audio?
)Seriously, avoid GH3/Wii.
If you must show off by completing (or FC'ing) TTFAF on expert, do it some other platform.
It's for your own good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456574</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1259677320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should have used the cracked executable for Mass Effect that didn't contain the DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have used the cracked executable for Mass Effect that did n't contain the DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have used the cracked executable for Mass Effect that didn't contain the DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456232</id>
	<title>DIY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take personal responsibility for not properly researching the title before you go blindly throw money at it.  If a game has bugs you'll know about it within the first 6 hours thanks to the internet and the ridiculous amount of people who have to buy a game the minute it comes out.  Now you know, "Hey that game has problems.  Maybe I should wait until they release a patch before I waste my money on it."</p><p>Here's is a simple solution that works for everybody reading this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take personal responsibility for not properly researching the title before you go blindly throw money at it .
If a game has bugs you 'll know about it within the first 6 hours thanks to the internet and the ridiculous amount of people who have to buy a game the minute it comes out .
Now you know , " Hey that game has problems .
Maybe I should wait until they release a patch before I waste my money on it .
" Here 's is a simple solution that works for everybody reading this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take personal responsibility for not properly researching the title before you go blindly throw money at it.
If a game has bugs you'll know about it within the first 6 hours thanks to the internet and the ridiculous amount of people who have to buy a game the minute it comes out.
Now you know, "Hey that game has problems.
Maybe I should wait until they release a patch before I waste my money on it.
"Here's is a simple solution that works for everybody reading this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461284</id>
	<title>Game Consoles</title>
	<author>MadClown69</author>
	<datestamp>1259696400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My problem is with Game Consoles.

Right now we can pull out an old Nintendo or Genesis game and enjoy them.
Some of these games are 20+ yrs old!

What am I going to do 20yrs from now when I pull out my copy of Call of Duty and want to play it
on my new quantum computer. Are the servers still going to be there to send me the patches I need to play the game?
NOPE!

The life of a game is now dictated by how long the game company decides to support it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem is with Game Consoles .
Right now we can pull out an old Nintendo or Genesis game and enjoy them .
Some of these games are 20 + yrs old !
What am I going to do 20yrs from now when I pull out my copy of Call of Duty and want to play it on my new quantum computer .
Are the servers still going to be there to send me the patches I need to play the game ?
NOPE ! The life of a game is now dictated by how long the game company decides to support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem is with Game Consoles.
Right now we can pull out an old Nintendo or Genesis game and enjoy them.
Some of these games are 20+ yrs old!
What am I going to do 20yrs from now when I pull out my copy of Call of Duty and want to play it
on my new quantum computer.
Are the servers still going to be there to send me the patches I need to play the game?
NOPE!

The life of a game is now dictated by how long the game company decides to support it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455356</id>
	<title>Re:What about Betas?</title>
	<author>MathFox</author>
	<datestamp>1259666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume the consumer does not have to pay to be part of a beta test program. Consumer protection law in my country (.nl) takes the price paid for the product into account when determining how much quality a "reasonable consumer" might expect. There is no need for a computer game to be perfect, as long as it is playable. Our judges are likely to handle "paid beta" software as any other paid for software: It should work, for reasonable definitions of work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume the consumer does not have to pay to be part of a beta test program .
Consumer protection law in my country ( .nl ) takes the price paid for the product into account when determining how much quality a " reasonable consumer " might expect .
There is no need for a computer game to be perfect , as long as it is playable .
Our judges are likely to handle " paid beta " software as any other paid for software : It should work , for reasonable definitions of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume the consumer does not have to pay to be part of a beta test program.
Consumer protection law in my country (.nl) takes the price paid for the product into account when determining how much quality a "reasonable consumer" might expect.
There is no need for a computer game to be perfect, as long as it is playable.
Our judges are likely to handle "paid beta" software as any other paid for software: It should work, for reasonable definitions of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457126</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1259680440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching. I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.</p></div><p>Of course, as the article mentioned, <a href="https://store.stardock.com/" title="stardock.com">Stardock</a> [stardock.com] is one of those companies that actual DO offer a refund; at least for customers that have trouble running their software. <br> <br>
Quote from their <a href="https://store.stardock.com/policy.aspx" title="stardock.com">FAQ page</a> [stardock.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>RETURN POLICY - Software published by Stardock<br> <br>

We require that you utilize our technical support services prior to issuing a refund. Tech support can be contacted at support@stardock.com. If it is determined that your problems cannot be rectified, technical support will instruct you on how to receive a full refund. Do not contact sales about a full refund without first contacting technical support. Sales will not fully refund your sale without an RMA from technical support. We do not charge for technical support.<br> <br>

We do not give refunds on beta or pre-release versions of software or subscription renewals. Refunds are only available for fully-released programs.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching .
I say " for example " since that 's the example given in the article that you did n't bother to read.Of course , as the article mentioned , Stardock [ stardock.com ] is one of those companies that actual DO offer a refund ; at least for customers that have trouble running their software .
Quote from their FAQ page [ stardock.com ] RETURN POLICY - Software published by Stardock We require that you utilize our technical support services prior to issuing a refund .
Tech support can be contacted at support @ stardock.com .
If it is determined that your problems can not be rectified , technical support will instruct you on how to receive a full refund .
Do not contact sales about a full refund without first contacting technical support .
Sales will not fully refund your sale without an RMA from technical support .
We do not charge for technical support .
We do not give refunds on beta or pre-release versions of software or subscription renewals .
Refunds are only available for fully-released programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching.
I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.Of course, as the article mentioned, Stardock [stardock.com] is one of those companies that actual DO offer a refund; at least for customers that have trouble running their software.
Quote from their FAQ page [stardock.com] RETURN POLICY - Software published by Stardock 

We require that you utilize our technical support services prior to issuing a refund.
Tech support can be contacted at support@stardock.com.
If it is determined that your problems cannot be rectified, technical support will instruct you on how to receive a full refund.
Do not contact sales about a full refund without first contacting technical support.
Sales will not fully refund your sale without an RMA from technical support.
We do not charge for technical support.
We do not give refunds on beta or pre-release versions of software or subscription renewals.
Refunds are only available for fully-released programs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456254</id>
	<title>Re:depends on the vendor</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259674380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard's course is pretty ingenious when you think of it. They set a release date that they won't hold. Probably even deliberately. They will continue to spin the game and you will have people get all hyped up about further release dates. They release trailers and teasers and maybe even a demo or two where you can play a level. Then long nothing while the boards overflow with anxiously expecting customers. Every time the interest dwindles a bit a new press release, a new release date or a new demo is released. Then, when the hype reaches its peak, the game gets released and is an immediate number one smash hit, a sellout. And more often than not, even a game that works as advertised.</p><p>EA does what has been stated by another replyer, they buy some brand and crank out cheap sequels to make a quick buck, until nobody cares about the brand anymore because it has gone stale and bland.</p><p>Personally, I think Blizzard's course of action is more sustainable and profitable in the long run. They could release a Warcraft 4 and it would again sell like hot cakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard 's course is pretty ingenious when you think of it .
They set a release date that they wo n't hold .
Probably even deliberately .
They will continue to spin the game and you will have people get all hyped up about further release dates .
They release trailers and teasers and maybe even a demo or two where you can play a level .
Then long nothing while the boards overflow with anxiously expecting customers .
Every time the interest dwindles a bit a new press release , a new release date or a new demo is released .
Then , when the hype reaches its peak , the game gets released and is an immediate number one smash hit , a sellout .
And more often than not , even a game that works as advertised.EA does what has been stated by another replyer , they buy some brand and crank out cheap sequels to make a quick buck , until nobody cares about the brand anymore because it has gone stale and bland.Personally , I think Blizzard 's course of action is more sustainable and profitable in the long run .
They could release a Warcraft 4 and it would again sell like hot cakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard's course is pretty ingenious when you think of it.
They set a release date that they won't hold.
Probably even deliberately.
They will continue to spin the game and you will have people get all hyped up about further release dates.
They release trailers and teasers and maybe even a demo or two where you can play a level.
Then long nothing while the boards overflow with anxiously expecting customers.
Every time the interest dwindles a bit a new press release, a new release date or a new demo is released.
Then, when the hype reaches its peak, the game gets released and is an immediate number one smash hit, a sellout.
And more often than not, even a game that works as advertised.EA does what has been stated by another replyer, they buy some brand and crank out cheap sequels to make a quick buck, until nobody cares about the brand anymore because it has gone stale and bland.Personally, I think Blizzard's course of action is more sustainable and profitable in the long run.
They could release a Warcraft 4 and it would again sell like hot cakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455496</id>
	<title>Question with a question(s)....</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1259667840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are Complex Games Doomed To Have Buggy Releases</p></div></blockquote><p>Is Windows "doomed" to have buggy releases?<br>Is Ubuntu or any other Linux distro doomed to have buggy releases?</p><p>Inasmuch as Windows, at least, has ALWAYS had buggy releases, I guess that means the answer to the question in the title is "Yes, Virginia."</p><p>But seriously, since when has any of the above been considered truly <b>mission critical</b>, in the sense that it MUST work exactly as expected from its very first execution in the field?  I think somebody has some pretty high expectations for consumer software here, if he's trying to apply the same process requirements that NASA or the DoD would demand.</p><p>They're GAMES.  Good grief.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are Complex Games Doomed To Have Buggy ReleasesIs Windows " doomed " to have buggy releases ? Is Ubuntu or any other Linux distro doomed to have buggy releases ? Inasmuch as Windows , at least , has ALWAYS had buggy releases , I guess that means the answer to the question in the title is " Yes , Virginia .
" But seriously , since when has any of the above been considered truly mission critical , in the sense that it MUST work exactly as expected from its very first execution in the field ?
I think somebody has some pretty high expectations for consumer software here , if he 's trying to apply the same process requirements that NASA or the DoD would demand.They 're GAMES .
Good grief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are Complex Games Doomed To Have Buggy ReleasesIs Windows "doomed" to have buggy releases?Is Ubuntu or any other Linux distro doomed to have buggy releases?Inasmuch as Windows, at least, has ALWAYS had buggy releases, I guess that means the answer to the question in the title is "Yes, Virginia.
"But seriously, since when has any of the above been considered truly mission critical, in the sense that it MUST work exactly as expected from its very first execution in the field?
I think somebody has some pretty high expectations for consumer software here, if he's trying to apply the same process requirements that NASA or the DoD would demand.They're GAMES.
Good grief.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458738</id>
	<title>this is why</title>
	<author>mestar</author>
	<datestamp>1259687220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 'Cars, TVs, and telephones are all expected to work, and they are full of software. Why not standalone software?</p><p>Because, for software there is no simple definition when something works and when it does not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Cars , TVs , and telephones are all expected to work , and they are full of software .
Why not standalone software ? Because , for software there is no simple definition when something works and when it does not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Cars, TVs, and telephones are all expected to work, and they are full of software.
Why not standalone software?Because, for software there is no simple definition when something works and when it does not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30465764</id>
	<title>Arrrrrgggg....</title>
	<author>twebb72</author>
	<datestamp>1259668020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People that complain about bugs on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. =&gt; Saavy Gamers =&gt; More Free Time =&gt; Less Work =&gt; Less Money. <br>
Less Money + Saavy Gamers = Pirate <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
why are you complaining? no one here actually buys games (see above)</htmltext>
<tokenext>People that complain about bugs on / .
= &gt; Saavy Gamers = &gt; More Free Time = &gt; Less Work = &gt; Less Money .
Less Money + Saavy Gamers = Pirate .. . why are you complaining ?
no one here actually buys games ( see above )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People that complain about bugs on /.
=&gt; Saavy Gamers =&gt; More Free Time =&gt; Less Work =&gt; Less Money.
Less Money + Saavy Gamers = Pirate  ...
why are you complaining?
no one here actually buys games (see above)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455826</id>
	<title>One problem: What is the cause of failure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259670840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially with PC games, far too often a "buggy game" is not working right because of the user's system.</p><p>I'm not defending clear cases - bugs in game logic, incompatibilities with common hardware etc. I'm talking of problems due to OS bugs with specific (rare) configurations, buggy old drivers, conflicts with configurations that do not have OS updates installed, pirated OS installs, malware mucking things up... stuff that falls to either the manufacturer of the OS or the administrator of the computer.</p><p>Realistically speaking, users can't be expected to figure out why exactly something breaks, but if application/game developers have to take refunds or help fix issues that are absolutely not their fault, things could get ugly and fast.</p><p>I'm talking from experience, working in the "front lines" - 80-90\% of the issues that users complain about (a PC game) are not caused by the game code. A small portion of those could perhaps be worked around in game code (built-in driver version checks etc. that spell out to the stupid that yes, this won't run on six month old buggy driver) but most of the cases are just failure-to-administer-your-computer type issues. If every single one of these would entitle the user to a refund, it would effectively mean that anyone could get a refund on an piece of software for any reason - it is exceedingly simple to just feign ignorance and state that "doesn't work on my PC".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially with PC games , far too often a " buggy game " is not working right because of the user 's system.I 'm not defending clear cases - bugs in game logic , incompatibilities with common hardware etc .
I 'm talking of problems due to OS bugs with specific ( rare ) configurations , buggy old drivers , conflicts with configurations that do not have OS updates installed , pirated OS installs , malware mucking things up... stuff that falls to either the manufacturer of the OS or the administrator of the computer.Realistically speaking , users ca n't be expected to figure out why exactly something breaks , but if application/game developers have to take refunds or help fix issues that are absolutely not their fault , things could get ugly and fast.I 'm talking from experience , working in the " front lines " - 80-90 \ % of the issues that users complain about ( a PC game ) are not caused by the game code .
A small portion of those could perhaps be worked around in game code ( built-in driver version checks etc .
that spell out to the stupid that yes , this wo n't run on six month old buggy driver ) but most of the cases are just failure-to-administer-your-computer type issues .
If every single one of these would entitle the user to a refund , it would effectively mean that anyone could get a refund on an piece of software for any reason - it is exceedingly simple to just feign ignorance and state that " does n't work on my PC " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially with PC games, far too often a "buggy game" is not working right because of the user's system.I'm not defending clear cases - bugs in game logic, incompatibilities with common hardware etc.
I'm talking of problems due to OS bugs with specific (rare) configurations, buggy old drivers, conflicts with configurations that do not have OS updates installed, pirated OS installs, malware mucking things up... stuff that falls to either the manufacturer of the OS or the administrator of the computer.Realistically speaking, users can't be expected to figure out why exactly something breaks, but if application/game developers have to take refunds or help fix issues that are absolutely not their fault, things could get ugly and fast.I'm talking from experience, working in the "front lines" - 80-90\% of the issues that users complain about (a PC game) are not caused by the game code.
A small portion of those could perhaps be worked around in game code (built-in driver version checks etc.
that spell out to the stupid that yes, this won't run on six month old buggy driver) but most of the cases are just failure-to-administer-your-computer type issues.
If every single one of these would entitle the user to a refund, it would effectively mean that anyone could get a refund on an piece of software for any reason - it is exceedingly simple to just feign ignorance and state that "doesn't work on my PC".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461106</id>
	<title>Re:AST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book (and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy!).</p></div><p>Linux was not in any way shape or form based on Minix.  They're both Unix implementations but that's where the similarities stop.  That's also why the "flamefest of the century" could occur.  Tenenbaum claimed Linus should be using a microkernel like the one used in Minix.</p><p>I feel like it's really necessary to point this out, because a while back there was some FUD about Linus "stealing" code from Minix.  Both Linus and Tenenbaum both came out and reiterated that there's no code from Minix in Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book ( and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy !
) .Linux was not in any way shape or form based on Minix .
They 're both Unix implementations but that 's where the similarities stop .
That 's also why the " flamefest of the century " could occur .
Tenenbaum claimed Linus should be using a microkernel like the one used in Minix.I feel like it 's really necessary to point this out , because a while back there was some FUD about Linus " stealing " code from Minix .
Both Linus and Tenenbaum both came out and reiterated that there 's no code from Minix in Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this one guy from Finland wrote an OS called Linux based on another OS called Minix discussed in that book (and even got into the flamefest of the century with the Finnish guy!
).Linux was not in any way shape or form based on Minix.
They're both Unix implementations but that's where the similarities stop.
That's also why the "flamefest of the century" could occur.
Tenenbaum claimed Linus should be using a microkernel like the one used in Minix.I feel like it's really necessary to point this out, because a while back there was some FUD about Linus "stealing" code from Minix.
Both Linus and Tenenbaum both came out and reiterated that there's no code from Minix in Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455924</id>
	<title>The truth is.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1259671680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what is the truth, but heres my humble opinion:</p><p>Any program, except the most simple one, has bugs. The ones that haven proven matematically that have zero bugs, are both the judge and the plaintiff.</p><p>On commercial software, the target is to solve problems quick. A quick and cheaper solution now, is better than the theorical perfect solution that can come in 4 years, but not so, because it never delivered, and is unusable anyway.</p><p>In mathemathics and science.. it may make sense to create stuff that is proven perfect, but not on something commercial.</p><p>Now games:</p><p>Games use to be CMMI1.  People doing "heroic actions" to finnish in time and in budget. Is getting better, and It will get better and better.  Planification is better than heroism in software crafting. Probably crafting games need some room for improvisation, so probably is a industry where total planification is suboptimal, but It will move there, because will be cheaper and more convenient for everyone.</p><p>imho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what is the truth , but heres my humble opinion : Any program , except the most simple one , has bugs .
The ones that haven proven matematically that have zero bugs , are both the judge and the plaintiff.On commercial software , the target is to solve problems quick .
A quick and cheaper solution now , is better than the theorical perfect solution that can come in 4 years , but not so , because it never delivered , and is unusable anyway.In mathemathics and science.. it may make sense to create stuff that is proven perfect , but not on something commercial.Now games : Games use to be CMMI1 .
People doing " heroic actions " to finnish in time and in budget .
Is getting better , and It will get better and better .
Planification is better than heroism in software crafting .
Probably crafting games need some room for improvisation , so probably is a industry where total planification is suboptimal , but It will move there , because will be cheaper and more convenient for everyone.imho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what is the truth, but heres my humble opinion:Any program, except the most simple one, has bugs.
The ones that haven proven matematically that have zero bugs, are both the judge and the plaintiff.On commercial software, the target is to solve problems quick.
A quick and cheaper solution now, is better than the theorical perfect solution that can come in 4 years, but not so, because it never delivered, and is unusable anyway.In mathemathics and science.. it may make sense to create stuff that is proven perfect, but not on something commercial.Now games:Games use to be CMMI1.
People doing "heroic actions" to finnish in time and in budget.
Is getting better, and It will get better and better.
Planification is better than heroism in software crafting.
Probably crafting games need some room for improvisation, so probably is a industry where total planification is suboptimal, but It will move there, because will be cheaper and more convenient for everyone.imho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off, you'd be able to answer your own question.

</p><p>On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.  Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app, for example, Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching.  I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off , you 'd be able to answer your own question .
On a PC , the vendor ca n't control the environment in which their software is run .
Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app , for example , Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching .
I say " for example " since that 's the example given in the article that you did n't bother to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if you read the fine article before jerking one off, you'd be able to answer your own question.
On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run.
Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app, for example, Google desktop stopping Demigod from launching.
I say "for example" since that's the example given in the article that you didn't bother to read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457664</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the plus side, it'll put Microsoft out of business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side , it 'll put Microsoft out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side, it'll put Microsoft out of business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416</id>
	<title>Re:Mass (D)Effect</title>
	<author>windwalkr</author>
	<datestamp>1259666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run. My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get, it's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines, I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things, it's a tried and true PC.</p></div><p>Just an anecdote from the other side of the fence, and not saying this is necessarily your case. Certainly not defending Mass Effect, I've never tried the game personally.</p><p>We've had numerous users report serious defects in our products over many years, and faced all sorts of threats and insults, only for the fault to be eventually traced to the user's "tried and tested hardware." Each program that you may use exercises different components of your PC in different ways. Sometimes subtle differences can make a massive difference in results; the difference between working fine and not even starting up. Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram?</p><p>We've also seen vastly different behavior from hardware/drivers built to the same spec but sourced from different manufacturers, or from the same manufacturer but over different periods. Sometimes these deviations are within the spec but not covered by reasonable testing; often these deviations are outside the spec completely. Should the developer pay because one or more of your components do not follow the specs, or deviate significantly from what was standard practice at the time the software was developed?</p><p>As a user, I have to agree that it sucks when products don't work as advertised. I agree that there should be a mechanism for complaint against any vendor, whether their product be physical or virtual. But I'm not sure that I agree that there should be an absolute right of refund at the user's discretion. That's just open for abuse - whether deliberate or incidental.</p><p>I'm also not particularly fond of DRM and yet that would seem to be the only way that a vendor could offer true "returns" of a software-only product.</p><p>It's probably worth noting that I'm not claiming that all bugs are the user's fault; but it's certainly not the case that all bugs are the application developer's fault, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run .
My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get , it 's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines , I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things , it 's a tried and true PC.Just an anecdote from the other side of the fence , and not saying this is necessarily your case .
Certainly not defending Mass Effect , I 've never tried the game personally.We 've had numerous users report serious defects in our products over many years , and faced all sorts of threats and insults , only for the fault to be eventually traced to the user 's " tried and tested hardware .
" Each program that you may use exercises different components of your PC in different ways .
Sometimes subtle differences can make a massive difference in results ; the difference between working fine and not even starting up .
Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram ? We 've also seen vastly different behavior from hardware/drivers built to the same spec but sourced from different manufacturers , or from the same manufacturer but over different periods .
Sometimes these deviations are within the spec but not covered by reasonable testing ; often these deviations are outside the spec completely .
Should the developer pay because one or more of your components do not follow the specs , or deviate significantly from what was standard practice at the time the software was developed ? As a user , I have to agree that it sucks when products do n't work as advertised .
I agree that there should be a mechanism for complaint against any vendor , whether their product be physical or virtual .
But I 'm not sure that I agree that there should be an absolute right of refund at the user 's discretion .
That 's just open for abuse - whether deliberate or incidental.I 'm also not particularly fond of DRM and yet that would seem to be the only way that a vendor could offer true " returns " of a software-only product.It 's probably worth noting that I 'm not claiming that all bugs are the user 's fault ; but it 's certainly not the case that all bugs are the application developer 's fault , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought Mass Effect only to find out that the game simply does not run.
My computer is as close to flawless as it could possibly get, it's been running for years and has successfully played many games with many different engines, I have done workarounds for crashes and bugs and all sorts of things, it's a tried and true PC.Just an anecdote from the other side of the fence, and not saying this is necessarily your case.
Certainly not defending Mass Effect, I've never tried the game personally.We've had numerous users report serious defects in our products over many years, and faced all sorts of threats and insults, only for the fault to be eventually traced to the user's "tried and tested hardware.
" Each program that you may use exercises different components of your PC in different ways.
Sometimes subtle differences can make a massive difference in results; the difference between working fine and not even starting up.
Should the developer pay because you have some mildly faulty ram?We've also seen vastly different behavior from hardware/drivers built to the same spec but sourced from different manufacturers, or from the same manufacturer but over different periods.
Sometimes these deviations are within the spec but not covered by reasonable testing; often these deviations are outside the spec completely.
Should the developer pay because one or more of your components do not follow the specs, or deviate significantly from what was standard practice at the time the software was developed?As a user, I have to agree that it sucks when products don't work as advertised.
I agree that there should be a mechanism for complaint against any vendor, whether their product be physical or virtual.
But I'm not sure that I agree that there should be an absolute right of refund at the user's discretion.
That's just open for abuse - whether deliberate or incidental.I'm also not particularly fond of DRM and yet that would seem to be the only way that a vendor could offer true "returns" of a software-only product.It's probably worth noting that I'm not claiming that all bugs are the user's fault; but it's certainly not the case that all bugs are the application developer's fault, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456992</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>a\_claudiu</author>
	<datestamp>1259679660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Asus MB983-001GIGM/S-4 Motherboard with AnusTech 56chipset and SuperHD-VGA 512Graphic2.0</p></div><p>Where did you bought your machine? It's a kind of 18+ shop?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asus MB983-001GIGM/S-4 Motherboard with AnusTech 56chipset and SuperHD-VGA 512Graphic2.0Where did you bought your machine ?
It 's a kind of 18 + shop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asus MB983-001GIGM/S-4 Motherboard with AnusTech 56chipset and SuperHD-VGA 512Graphic2.0Where did you bought your machine?
It's a kind of 18+ shop?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457196</id>
	<title>Yet another suggestive headline of false dichotomy</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259680920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Complex games are usually done, using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral\_model" title="wikipedia.org">spiral model</a> [wikipedia.org].<br>With a non-predetermined number of rounds.</p><p>One usually stops, when it&rsquo;s &ldquo;good enough&rdquo;, and all pre-identified (potential) problems are identified.</p><p>Of course that does not mean that there are no problems that the team is not aware of.<br>But it also means, that one could theoretically continue forever.<br>That &ldquo;And the last 10\% take another 90\% of the time.&rdquo; saying is a vast understatement here.</p><p>Which means, that the decision is left to the manager. Who cuts it off at a specific point, depending on the finances and experience.</p><p>Now the thing is, that EA, for example, usually cuts it off as early as possible, with only maximum quick buck in mind.<br>Their near-monopolistic dominance does not make it better, as they can get away with much more by simply adding more marketing. (Which in a feedback loop shifts even more budget from development to marketing.)</p><p>That&rsquo;s the problem with companies like EA. They are not a creativity-driven company anymore. But solely a money-driven one. They literally don&rsquo;t care what happens after you bought the game.<br>And because of the same effect, that makes people vote for the same bunch of criminals called a party, that raped them some terms ago in, they will buy the next game too. (In both cases it&rsquo;s the hype and disinformation. Like when EA buys nearly every magazine out there, and/or only offers real pictures and videos to those who give high ratings.)</p><p>(It&rsquo;s not just EA though. Rockstar is just as bad, with GTA 3 SA being unplayable by the majority of users, upon release, and the only patches being available on gamecopyworld. Or the huge load of bugs in GTA IV, like 3 sec input lag, and extremely crappy graphics for its performance. But they at least have some creative drive left.)</p><p>So we are, obviously, an essential part in this problem. And we normally can&rsquo;t change all those idiots who buy those games anyway.<br>Also, of course, a company, in the real end, always is driven by money. Because it&rsquo;s a company.<br>Of course you can decide to stay smaller, and focus on other ideals. But what do you think how many companies do this?<br>And what do you think happens to a company, when they hire the typical &ldquo;worked in a completely different industry, but thinks a manager is a manager, and therefore focuses solely on the common aspects&rdquo; manager?<br>Or when they go public, and EA buys them. Or EA simply kills them by using its dominance.</p><p>Only a privately owned company with a strong leader can stay that way in the long run. And even then it would need to be just as good at marketing the games, as EA.<br>I hope, some day, that will be me. But it&rsquo;s going to be one hell of a ride!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Complex games are usually done , using spiral model [ wikipedia.org ] .With a non-predetermined number of rounds.One usually stops , when it    s    good enough    , and all pre-identified ( potential ) problems are identified.Of course that does not mean that there are no problems that the team is not aware of.But it also means , that one could theoretically continue forever.That    And the last 10 \ % take another 90 \ % of the time.    saying is a vast understatement here.Which means , that the decision is left to the manager .
Who cuts it off at a specific point , depending on the finances and experience.Now the thing is , that EA , for example , usually cuts it off as early as possible , with only maximum quick buck in mind.Their near-monopolistic dominance does not make it better , as they can get away with much more by simply adding more marketing .
( Which in a feedback loop shifts even more budget from development to marketing .
) That    s the problem with companies like EA .
They are not a creativity-driven company anymore .
But solely a money-driven one .
They literally don    t care what happens after you bought the game.And because of the same effect , that makes people vote for the same bunch of criminals called a party , that raped them some terms ago in , they will buy the next game too .
( In both cases it    s the hype and disinformation .
Like when EA buys nearly every magazine out there , and/or only offers real pictures and videos to those who give high ratings .
) ( It    s not just EA though .
Rockstar is just as bad , with GTA 3 SA being unplayable by the majority of users , upon release , and the only patches being available on gamecopyworld .
Or the huge load of bugs in GTA IV , like 3 sec input lag , and extremely crappy graphics for its performance .
But they at least have some creative drive left .
) So we are , obviously , an essential part in this problem .
And we normally can    t change all those idiots who buy those games anyway.Also , of course , a company , in the real end , always is driven by money .
Because it    s a company.Of course you can decide to stay smaller , and focus on other ideals .
But what do you think how many companies do this ? And what do you think happens to a company , when they hire the typical    worked in a completely different industry , but thinks a manager is a manager , and therefore focuses solely on the common aspects    manager ? Or when they go public , and EA buys them .
Or EA simply kills them by using its dominance.Only a privately owned company with a strong leader can stay that way in the long run .
And even then it would need to be just as good at marketing the games , as EA.I hope , some day , that will be me .
But it    s going to be one hell of a ride !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complex games are usually done, using spiral model [wikipedia.org].With a non-predetermined number of rounds.One usually stops, when it’s “good enough”, and all pre-identified (potential) problems are identified.Of course that does not mean that there are no problems that the team is not aware of.But it also means, that one could theoretically continue forever.That “And the last 10\% take another 90\% of the time.” saying is a vast understatement here.Which means, that the decision is left to the manager.
Who cuts it off at a specific point, depending on the finances and experience.Now the thing is, that EA, for example, usually cuts it off as early as possible, with only maximum quick buck in mind.Their near-monopolistic dominance does not make it better, as they can get away with much more by simply adding more marketing.
(Which in a feedback loop shifts even more budget from development to marketing.
)That’s the problem with companies like EA.
They are not a creativity-driven company anymore.
But solely a money-driven one.
They literally don’t care what happens after you bought the game.And because of the same effect, that makes people vote for the same bunch of criminals called a party, that raped them some terms ago in, they will buy the next game too.
(In both cases it’s the hype and disinformation.
Like when EA buys nearly every magazine out there, and/or only offers real pictures and videos to those who give high ratings.
)(It’s not just EA though.
Rockstar is just as bad, with GTA 3 SA being unplayable by the majority of users, upon release, and the only patches being available on gamecopyworld.
Or the huge load of bugs in GTA IV, like 3 sec input lag, and extremely crappy graphics for its performance.
But they at least have some creative drive left.
)So we are, obviously, an essential part in this problem.
And we normally can’t change all those idiots who buy those games anyway.Also, of course, a company, in the real end, always is driven by money.
Because it’s a company.Of course you can decide to stay smaller, and focus on other ideals.
But what do you think how many companies do this?And what do you think happens to a company, when they hire the typical “worked in a completely different industry, but thinks a manager is a manager, and therefore focuses solely on the common aspects” manager?Or when they go public, and EA buys them.
Or EA simply kills them by using its dominance.Only a privately owned company with a strong leader can stay that way in the long run.
And even then it would need to be just as good at marketing the games, as EA.I hope, some day, that will be me.
But it’s going to be one hell of a ride!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457776</id>
	<title>Re:depends on the vendor</title>
	<author>dogmatixpsych</author>
	<datestamp>1259683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EA's Dragon Age: Origins was surprisingly bug-free. I'm always amazed at how quickly the game starts up. I can open the game and be playing within 20 seconds on a three year old Dell (it has a 1.8 GHz Core Duo - not Core 2 Duo - with 2 GB RAM). Exiting out of the game is similarly quick. I recently applied patches EA released (okay, Bioware) but they were mainly adjusting balance or minor things like that. Anyway, Dragon Age is one EA game I was super-impressed with the release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>EA 's Dragon Age : Origins was surprisingly bug-free .
I 'm always amazed at how quickly the game starts up .
I can open the game and be playing within 20 seconds on a three year old Dell ( it has a 1.8 GHz Core Duo - not Core 2 Duo - with 2 GB RAM ) .
Exiting out of the game is similarly quick .
I recently applied patches EA released ( okay , Bioware ) but they were mainly adjusting balance or minor things like that .
Anyway , Dragon Age is one EA game I was super-impressed with the release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA's Dragon Age: Origins was surprisingly bug-free.
I'm always amazed at how quickly the game starts up.
I can open the game and be playing within 20 seconds on a three year old Dell (it has a 1.8 GHz Core Duo - not Core 2 Duo - with 2 GB RAM).
Exiting out of the game is similarly quick.
I recently applied patches EA released (okay, Bioware) but they were mainly adjusting balance or minor things like that.
Anyway, Dragon Age is one EA game I was super-impressed with the release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455466</id>
	<title>Then, mr Tanenbaum, fix the programming languages!</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1259667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a total shame that, in this day and age, and after millions of hours spent by academics on programming languages, to use a language like C or C++ for games or desktop apps that require performance.</p><p>Yes, I know, I have told this many times on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., and the standard answer is "it's the programmer, stupid". Well, it may be so, but writing bug free software requires god programmers. If there were better system programming languages, programmers would not need to be gods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a total shame that , in this day and age , and after millions of hours spent by academics on programming languages , to use a language like C or C + + for games or desktop apps that require performance.Yes , I know , I have told this many times on /. , and the standard answer is " it 's the programmer , stupid " .
Well , it may be so , but writing bug free software requires god programmers .
If there were better system programming languages , programmers would not need to be gods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a total shame that, in this day and age, and after millions of hours spent by academics on programming languages, to use a language like C or C++ for games or desktop apps that require performance.Yes, I know, I have told this many times on /., and the standard answer is "it's the programmer, stupid".
Well, it may be so, but writing bug free software requires god programmers.
If there were better system programming languages, programmers would not need to be gods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30460916</id>
	<title>Re:Refunds for broken merchandise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;motherboard with AnusTech</p><p>I don't even want to know where you pulled those specs from...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; motherboard with AnusTechI do n't even want to know where you pulled those specs from.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;motherboard with AnusTechI don't even want to know where you pulled those specs from...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30465640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30466550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30479498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30460916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30462688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30468276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0934206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30466550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30468276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30458592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30460916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30479498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30462688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30465640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30461326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30459950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30456578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30463646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30457824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0934206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0934206.30455466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
